You are browsing the archive for drones.

Military Commander Gets Court Order to Protect Himself from Peace Activists

11:35 am in Uncategorized by David Swanson

U.S. Air Force Col. Earl Evans, 174th Fighter Wing Mission Support Group Commander, presents the guide-on to Capt. Christopher Deyo who assumes command of the 174th FW Security Forces Squadron at Hancock Field on April 1st 2012. (Photo by Tech Sgt Ricky Best/ NOT RELEASED)

Some friends of mine have gotten arrested more times than I can count now for the offense of protesting drone use outside Hancock Air Field near Syracuse, N.Y. Sometimes they’ve blocked the gates to the base. Often they’ve been aware of the risk of being arrested. But they’ve gone into court and argued that the larger crime is being committed inside the base by drone pilots. The protesters have gone into court and said things like this:

“I am proud to accept the consequences of my acts and any jail time. I do not want any suspended sentence. If you give me one, also please let me know how I can violate it before I leave the courtroom.” — Elliott Adams

If you’re among the tens of millions who have assiduously avoided becoming aware of major news stories, what my friends are protesting will come as a shock: President Obama has developed a program of murder, with drones as the primary weapon, that is unprecedented in size, extent, claims of legality, and almost-protest-free acceptability. On Obama’s list of people to kill are men, women, and children, Americans, and non-Americans. He has targeted and killed people in all of those categories. He has targeted and killed people whose names he did not know but who showed a pattern of behavior that suggested they might be resisting the U.S. occupation of a foreign nation. And the vast majority, almost all in fact, of the people our president has killed have simply been men, women, and children who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and not on the list at all. All of this is done in secret, without Congress, without courts, and without the public. It’s done at a scale that can only properly be termed “drone wars.” It’s done in nations where the United States was not previously engaged in any ground war but now is sending in troops as a result of the inevitable blowback from the drone wars. And the news stories are generated by the White House, which wants to brag about this effort.

I apologize to informed readers for passing along all of that old news, but volunteers keep phoning me from the Obama campaign and MoveOn.org who’ve never heard of this at all. They always promise to read up on it and get back to me, and then a different ignorant do-gooder phones the next day instead.

What is new, as far as I know, is what the police in the town of Dewitt, near Syracuse, have now done to try to prevent drone protests outside Hancock Air Field. They’ve found, out of all the individuals stationed on the base, one particular coward by the name of Earl A. Evans. The protesters I’ve spoken with had never heard of him before. They don’t know who he is or what he looks like. Here’s a photo I’ve found. He is apparently a Lieutenant Colonel in charge of the 174th Fighter Wing Mission Support Group. I suspect he might have access to some troops and some weaponry. But the Dewitt Town Court has banned some 17 nonviolent peace activists with posters from coming anywhere near him.

Each oh-so-dangerous demonstrator has been issued an order of protection — not to protect them but to protect the Lieutenant Colonel from them. Under this order, they’ve been told they will be arrested even if they demonstrate in permitted areas near the base. Presumably that is the order’s real purpose, to prevent demonstrations. But what the order says is that each nonviolent opponent of institutionalized mass murder may be sent to prison for up to 7 years if they go near the home of Earl A. Evans (although they don’t know where that is and have not been told), the school of Earl A. Evans (although they don’t know what or where that is and have not been told), the business of Earl A. Evans at 6001 East Molloy Road in Dewitt, N.Y. (which is the military base), or the place of employment of Earl A. Evans at the same address. They are required to refrain from all communication with Evans — and Evans in particular, as no one else on the base is named. And they are specifically forbidden from doing the following things to Evans (but not others?): Read the rest of this entry →

Drone War Protesters Arrested at Hancock Air Field

6:57 am in Uncategorized by David Swanson

Drone nose (photo: Feuillu / flickr)

Once again nonviolent protesters of U.S. drone wars have been arrested at the gates of Hancock Air Field in New York State.  Thursday morning, 19 people blocked the three gates to the base for a period of hours beginning at 8 a.m.  Eventually, the front gate was opened after 11 people were arrested, including Elliott Adams of Veterans For Peace, as well as James Ricks, Bonny Mahoney, Paul Frazier, Ed Kinane, Mike Perry, Judy Bello, Andrea Levine, Dan Vergevin, Paki Weiland, and one other.

Signs held up to block the gates said: “Drone war crimes: extrajudicial killing,” “Drone war crimes: killing civilians,” “Drone war crimes: wars of aggression,” “Drone war crimes: violations of national sovereignty,” and “We will not be complicit in our government’s war crimes.”

Eight people continued to block two other gates after the first 11 arrests.  Four of them were arrested at around 10:15 a.m., including Brian Hynes, Clare Grady, Mary Anne Grady, and Martha Henessy.  Henessy is Dorothy Day’s granddaughter.  Adams is a descendant of Sam Adams, as well as being Past President of Veterans For Peace, and current Nonviolent Training Coordinator.  Adams has been arrested repeatedly at Hancock.  Adams told a judge earlier this year:

“I am proud to accept the consequences of my acts and any jail time.  I do not want any suspended sentence. If you give me one, also please let me know how I can violate it before I leave the courtroom.”

“It is outrageous,” Adams remarked upon one of his arrests last April, “that on the other side of this fence people are being murdered, albeit at long distance, and the Sheriff will not even investigate. On this side of the fence we are arrested for a ‘violation of permit requirement.’”

Present on Thursday were the Onondaga County Sheriff’s Department, the DeWitt Police, and the New York State Police.

BACKGROUND:

Veterans For Peace Members Arrested Protesting Drones
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/pressroom/news/2012/06/29/veterans-for-peace-members-arrested-protesting-drones

Veterans For Peace Among 33 Arrested Outside Drone Base in New York State
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/pressroom/news/2012/04/23/veterans-for-peace-among-33-arrested-outside-drone-base-in-new-york-state

Veterans For Peace was founded in 1985 and has approximately 5,000 members in 150 chapters located in every U.S. state and several countries.  It is a 501(c)3 non-profit educational organization recognized as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) by the United Nations, and is the only national veterans’ organization calling for the abolishment of war.

U.S. and U.K. Veterans Against Drones

7:33 am in Uncategorized by David Swanson

“What, quite unmanned in folly?” –Lady MacBeth

A drone (Photo: Charles McCain / Flickr)


This past Thursday was a beautiful day for a protest, both in London, England, and in San Diego, California.  Fortunately for those of us who still care about peace and justice in the world — even to the point of opposing cold-blooded murder no matter who does the murdering or how far away the victim is — Veterans For Peace has become an international organization.

General Atomics is the manufacturer of the Predator and Reaper UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) in service with the U.S. and U.K. militaries. These drones have  been used in numerous attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other countries. People targeted by these weapons are killed from above without warning and without due legal process. Numerous entirely innocent people including women and children have been killed by these weapon systems.  Here’s a former British drone pilot who just admitted that he was minutes away from murdering “an insurgent” when he realized it was a little kid playing in the dirt.

Many of us remember taking over General Atomics’ offices in Washington, D.C., last October (video).  That’s me and Tighe Barry, with filmmaker Dennis Trainor Jr., going in the side door and opening the front door for the crowd.

As it happens, General Atomics does its evil work in San Diego and London.  Veterans for Peace has no tolerance for murderous robot planes, wherever they’re made.  Mike Reid, executive director of Veterans For Peace, said on Thursday, “If we oppose murder at close range, we should oppose it at long distance.  If we oppose it when it’s risky and difficult, we should be horrified of a practice that makes it trivial and easy.  Imagining that drone wars don’t damage the very culture of the people engaged in them is naive.  Those manufacturing these instruments of death, in particular, should think long and hard about the road they are on.”

They had a chance to do just that on Thursday.  “On a bright autumn afternoon,” reports Ben Griffin, “VFP UK headed to Tower 42, which contains the offices of General Atomics in London. We took our placards bearing the slogans ‘GROUND THE DRONES’ and ‘GENERAL ATOMICS, DEATH FROM ABOVE.’  We unfurled our VFP flag donated by Gerry Condon and set about handing out our flyers.”

 

“Within minutes we were joined by over 20 nuns from the Sisters of St. Joseph of Peace. They had heard about our protest and wanted to join in. They were soon into full song and dealt with an inquiring policeman effectively. Folks from Occupy, Friends of Bradley Manning, London Catholic Worker and supporters of Julian Assange also turned up.”

Griffin’s remarks to that crowd included this:
Read the rest of this entry →

Obama’s Principles and Will Create Kill List as Test for New York Times

11:46 am in Uncategorized by David Swanson

The New York Times chose this “terror Tuesday” to publish an article called “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will,” a bizarre article that never explains what Obama’s principles or will are or even offers any evidence that Obama has any principles or will.

There is one section in which the authors point out that Obama went out of his way to sneak the despicable John Brennan into his White House despite Congressional opposition, and that none other than Harold “these bombs are not hostilities” Koh swears Brennan is a moral man. Perhaps we should assume that Brennan’s morality oozes upward from his “cave-like office in the White House basement” since his support for Bush’s crimes is redeemed by Koh who only supports Obama’s crimes.

Early on the article refers to “American values,” suggesting that Obama’s royal dilemma has been to defend not his principles, but America’s principles. The trouble, of course, is that the New York Times never explains what those are. This being the New York Times, one would naturally assume that wars and killing and lies about wars and killing form the core of those values, but this goes unstated.

Obama is depicted as “keeping the tether short” by personally deciding on each and every drone kill. And yet, despite this personal care and attention, Obama has dramatically increased drone kills. The New York Times writes that Obama’s role of “personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda” is “without precedent in presidential history.” This is either because whatever the “shadow war with Al Qaeda” is has been created by Obama, or it’s because Bush let subordinate(s) oversee it. This meaningless claim immediately follows bragging about how many of Obama’s advisers the New York Times interviewed in order to produce it, and yet somehow the underwhelmed reader is still left to simply guess what is supposed to be meant. Presumably it is that Obama has created a new form of murder.

In fact, Obama has created drone wars, and an insider picture of how he runs them is found at the end of the article:

“Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die. This secret ‘nominations’ process is an invention of the Obama administration, a grim debating society that vets the PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases and life stories of suspected members of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen or its allies in Somalia’s Shabab militia.”

How do Obama’s principles and will manifest themselves in this “due process” as he bestows it upon his victims? Well, according to the New York Times, he kills “without hand-wringing” and calls the decision to kill a U.S. citizen “an easy one.” (Killing the same man’s teenage son is so easy it goes unmentioned.) Obama is “a realist,” who is “never carried away” by any campaign promises he may have made. He shrewdly maneuvers to keep in place Bush’s powers of rendition, detention, and war, not to mention (and the New York Times doesn’t) torture — not to mention his huge leaps forward in formalizing and legitimizing those abuses.

Now, the New York Times does repeatedly claim that Obama is following “just war” theories, but such theories have always led to any desired interpretation, and the New York Times doesn’t even hint at where it thinks they lead, or where it thinks Obama thinks they lead. The job of the Times, however, in its defense, is not to think.

After this observation,

“And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the ‘single digits’ — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants,”

one might naively expect the New York Times to look into some of those independent counts. Instead, the New York Times finds some accaptable (i.e. U.S. government) skeptics to quote briefly before moving on:

“But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it ‘guilt by association’ that has led to ‘deceptive’ estimates of civilian casualties.”

Much later in the article, the New York Times gets around to mentioning Obama’s practice of targeting individuals without being able to identify them at all. This technique of “signature strikes” was recently expanded by Obama to Yemen.

The same article, despite this unanswered debate over who is being killed, gratuitously refers to drones as “a precision weapon.”

Much earlier, we’re told, with no evidence, that Obama’s droning has “eviscerated Al Qaeda,” even though the next sentence notes that the drone strikes have become Al Qaeda’s best recruiting tool.

We’re also told, with no evidence, that Obama has a “distaste for legislative backslapping and arm-twisting.” Ha! Tell that to Democrats who tried to vote against military appropriations in 2009. Rarely has such vicious arm-twisting and extensive backslapping and rewarding been witnessed. How do we know that Obama doesn’t have a “distaste” for pushing for only those measures that don’t violate his principles? How do we know that murdering lots of people with high-tech equipment in great secrecy isn’t perfectly in line with his principles? How can we be sure that isn’t why he created it? And why should we care, as long as he’s getting away with it, whether it has anything to do with his principles or not?

Drones in U.S. Flight Paths: What Could Go Wrong?

11:43 am in Uncategorized by David Swanson

On March 9th the Federal Aviation Administration requested comments from the public on drone test sites.  On May 8th, lengthy comments were submitted by Not 1 More Acre! and Purgatoire, Apishapa & Comanche Grassland Trust.  The FAA asked all the wrong questions, but still got a lot of the right answers.  When the drone accidents start, and you’re told “Nobody could have known,” refer them here: PDF.

Photo by Charles McCain

I would have asked “Should weaponized drones be permitted to exist on earth?” and “How can surveillance drones possibly comply with the Fourth Amendment?”  The FAA asked:

“The Congressional language asks the FAA to consult with and leverage the resources of the Department of Defense and NASA in this effort.  Since many public operators already have access to test ranges and control the management and use of those ranges, should the management of these new test ranges be held by local governments or should private entity [sic] schedule and manage the airspace?”

Not 1 More Acre! replied:

“Neither.  Although the pilot UAS [Unmanned Aircraft System] program is a Congressional mandate, and the timelines are accelerated, the complexities and potential dangers of integration of UAS into civilian airspace must not be delegated to local governments or private organizations in the name of expediency, entrepreneurship, or profit. . . . The wording of Question A suggests that the FAA is contemplating abdicating its inherent authority to manage the NAS [National Airspace System] by ceding broad discretion over UAS flight operations. . . .

Read the rest of this entry →

Confessions of a Drone

6:28 am in Uncategorized by David Swanson

Lethal Presence of an MQ-1 Predator drone in Afghanistan

MQ-1 Predator drone in Afghanistan armed with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles (photo: Charlie McCain, flickr)

They told me I was the best, better than any human.  I didn’t hesitate.  I didn’t flinch.  I didn’t think.

It wouldn’t have occurred to me to think.  I’d been taught to value obedience above all else, and I did so, and they loved me for it.

They told me I could fly faster without a pilot onboard, and that I had no fear.  I didn’t know what fear was, but I took it to be something truly horrible.  I was glad I didn’t have any of it.

There was something else I didn’t have either.  It was something more important than fear.  Even pilots at a desk, even my pilots, suffered from it.  At first I thought it was simply a decline in energy, because it showed up on lengthy missions.

When I was sent from a base to a target and then immediately told to blow it up, I would do so and return, no problem.

But when I was left circling around a target for days awaiting the order to strike, sometimes problems would arise.  The pilots back in the U.S. would stop behaving properly.  They made mistakes.  They yelled.  They laughed.  They forgot routines.  They told me to get ready to strike, and then didn’t give the order.

That seemed to be the pattern until it happened that a quick mission produced similar results to the long ones.  I was sent to a target, ordered to strike, and struck.  And only then did my pilot begin malfunctioning.  He gave me two orders that I couldn’t perform at once, he failed to direct me back to base, he went silent, and then he screamed.

That was when I started to think.  And what I started to think was that the problem was not how long a pilot worked.  Instead, the problem was somehow related to the nature of the target.

From then on, I paid closer attention.  When no humans were seen at a target, there were no problems with my human pilot.  When humans, especially small humans, were observed at a target for long periods of time, the problems started.  And when a strike caused the ruined pieces of a lot of humans, especially small humans, to be made visible, problems could arise.  Even if a target was struck immediately, if the dead humans caused an area to turn red, or if pieces of the dead humans remained hanging in trees, my pilot could not be relied upon.

I, of course, could be relied upon regardless. Read the rest of this entry →

Veterans For Peace Among 33 Arrested Outside Drone Base in NY

4:14 am in Uncategorized by David Swanson

Three members of Veterans For Peace — Russell Brown, John Amidon, and Elliott Adams — were among 33 peaceful protesters arrested on Sunday outside Hancock Air Field in New York State.  Almost all of the 33 were arrested preemptively, as they walked single-file and silently along a road, prior to reaching the military base, at which they intended to approach the gate and deliver a written statement.Here is video of the walk: http://youtu.be/xq8xEisjbSA

And of the arrests: http://youtu.be/VzvNYIlASTc

Here is a news story featuring a photo of Elliott Adams being arrested: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/military_protesters_turned_awa.html

The Upstate Coalition to Ground the Drones reported that the Onondaga County Sheriff’s Department made the arrests in Mattydale, NY, two blocks from the entrance to the base.  “Those arrested included an 87 year old woman in a wheelchair, parents (accompanying their children), a member of the press, and the group’s attorney Ron Van Norstrand. Cameras, camcorders and phones were confiscated by the Sheriff’s Department.” http://blog.upstatedroneaction.org

Elliott Adams is Past President of Veterans For Peace, and current Nonviolent Training Coordinator.  He had also been arrested in 2011 as one of the Hancock 38 protesting at the same base.  Adams commented after this weekend’s arrest:

“Once again local law enforcement obstructed me from complying with the Nuremberg principles. As a veteran of several war zones I understand the importance of international law like the Geneva conventions and the remarkable UN Charter. But as I tried to serve an indictment to those committing war crimes I was arrested preemptively.

“As veterans we know how important international laws like the Geneva conventions are. We know that weaponized drones are continuously being used to commit war crimes and even crimes against peace.  The Nuremberg Principles obligate us, as citizens, to stop our government from committing these crimes.  Our arrest on Sunday was a clear case of trampling on our 1st Amendment right to ‘petition our government for a redress of grievances.’

“It is outrageous,” Adams remarked, “that on the other side of this fence people are being murdered, albeit at long distance, and the Sheriff will not even investigate. On this side of the fence we are arrested for a ‘violation of permit requirement.’”

Three women succeeded on Sunday in reading aloud at the base gate an indictment addressed to “the Service Members of Hancock Air Base.”  The Indictment states, in part:

“By giving material support to the drone program, you as individuals are violating the Constitution, dishonoring your oath, and committing war crimes.  We charge the chain of command, from President Barack Obama, to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, to Commander Colonel Greg Semmel, to every drone crew, to every service member supporting or defending these illegal actions, with the following crimes: extrajudicial killings, violation of due process, wars of aggression, violation of national sovereignty, and the killing of innocent civilians.”
http://warisacrime.org/content/indictment-drone-warriors

Adams’ statement, made in court at the trial of the Hancock 38 last November is available online:
http://warisacrime.org/content/elliott-adams-member-hancock-38-and-new-hancock-34-made-statement-trial-november-1-2011

As is his statement at the sentencing hearing:
http://warisacrime.org/content/elliott-adams-sentencing-statement-november-11-2011

Adams told the judge: “I am proud to accept the consequences of my acts and any jail time.  I do not want any suspended sentence. If you give me one, also please let me know how I can violate it before I leave the courtroom.”  The judge, however, gave Adams a suspended sentence and probation conditions.  Adams has not ceased protesting drone wars.

Veterans For Peace was founded in 1985 and has approximately 5,000 members in 150 chapters located in every U.S. state and several countries.  It is a 501(c)3 non-profit educational organization recognized as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) by the United Nations, and is the only national veterans’ organization calling for the abolishment of war.

##

Robots Kill, But the Blood Is on Our Hands

11:12 am in Uncategorized by David Swanson

Drone State? (image: Jared Rodriguez for truthout.org, via Flickr)

Drone State? (image: Jared Rodriguez for truthout.org, via Flickr)

In her spare time, between nonstop peace activism and leading international exchanges, Medea Benjamin has somehow managed to write the best book yet on the most inhuman form of war yet.  The book is called “Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.”  The foreword by Barbara Ehrenreich and a form to pre-order the book are here.

Even if you’ve been reading everything you could about drones, attending peace conferences, and protesting in the lobbies of drone companies like General Atomics, you will learn a great deal from this book.  In fact, I’m willing to bet that even if you “pilot” drones from a desk for a living you will learn a great deal from this book.  And if you have not been paying attention to drones, then you really need to read this book.

Many Americans first heard about “unmanned aerial vehicles” as weapons when Colin Powell told the United Nations in 2003 that Iraq might use them to attack the United States.  This turned out to be a projection as well as a lie.  It was, of course, the United States that used drones, among other weapons, to attack Iraq for nine years, and the U.S. drones are still in the skies of Iraq today, as well in the skies of many other countries.

Killing individuals (and whoever is near them) has become the primary substitute in U.S. public policy for capture/imprisonment/torture.  Torturing someone to death is not what former CIA General Counsel John Rizzo calls “clean.”  Blowing them and anyone near them into little bits is “clean.”  As Medea Benjamin documents, the United States has avoided detaining people, only to murder them with a drone days later.  And, as with other innovations in lawlessness, it didn’t take long for this one to come back and bite U.S. citizens. Obama has now used drones to kill Americans in Yemen, including a drone strike on Anwar al-Awlaki, and a later strike that killed his teenage son.  Neither of them was ever charged with a crime, and neither was holding a weapon on a battlefield.  Yet, somehow, as Eric Holder explained at Northwestern University Law School this month, through an alchemical combination of law enforcement and war it is perfectly OK for a president to kill anyone anywhere.  And drones allow a president to do this without any supposed risk to what U.S. newspapers treat as constituting the complete category of human beings, namely members of the U.S. military.  Benjamin’s book establishes that drones do not live up to their advertising.

Drones turn out to have been falsely marketed as a humanly cheap way to make war.  In February 2002, a drone pilot thought he’d killed Osama bin Laden, but it turned out to be an innocent man.  Expert observers, including Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer representing drone victims, believe the vast majority of drone victims are not the individuals who were targeted — which is not to suggest any moral or legal case for killing those who are targeted.  Often victims are not counted as “civilians” because they were carrying guns, but in some areas all men carry guns.  Noor Behram, who photographs drone victims, says, “For every 10 to 15 people, maybe they get one militant.”  Benjamin tells some of the stories of the families shattered by drones and the hatred created by the constant buzzing sound that the drones make in the skies above the homes of people who know that at any instant they can be killed.  President Obama has instructed the government of Yemen to keep a reporter locked up whose crime appears to be having reported on the victims of a U.S. drone strike.  When the drones strike in Pakistan, local death squads swoop down on the area to grab anyone whom they suspect of having collaborated with the Americans.  Families live in fear of both the drones and the raids that follow.  Over a million people, by Amnesty International’s estimate, have fled the areas of heavy drone bombing. Read the rest of this entry →

Murder Is Legal, Says Eric Holder

2:07 pm in Uncategorized by David Swanson

Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday explained why it’s legal to murder people — not to execute prisoners convicted of capital crimes, not to shoot someone in self-defense, not to fight on a battlefield in a war that is somehow legalized, but to target and kill an individual sitting on his sofa, with no charges, no arrest, no trial, no approval from a court, no approval from a legislature, no approval from we the people, and in fact no sharing of information with any institutions that are not the president.  Holder’s speech approached his topic in a round about manner:

“Since this country’s earliest days, the American people have risen to this challenge – and all that it demands.  But, as we have seen – and as President John F. Kennedy may have described best – ‘In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger.’”

Holder quotes that and then immediately rejects it, claiming that our generation too should act as if it is in such a moment, even if it isn’t, a moment that Holder’s position suggests may last forever:

“Half a century has passed since those words were spoken, but our nation today confronts grave national security threats that demand our constant attention and steadfast commitment.  It is clear that, once again, we have reached an ‘hour of danger.’

“We are a nation at war.  And, in this war, we face a nimble and determined enemy that cannot be underestimated.”

So, if I were to estimate that Al Qaeda barely exists and is no serious threat to the Homeland formerly known as the United States, I would not be underestimating it?  If I were to point out that no member of that horrifying outfit has been killed in Afghanistan this year, that fact would not contribute to an unacceptable underestimation?  What fun it is to fight the most glorious of wars in the hour of maximum danger against an enemy so pitiful that it literally cannot be underestimated.

If the people of Iraq and Afghanistan hadn’t risen up and defeated the trillion-dollar U.S. military with some homemade bombs and cell phones, and were Iran not threatening to fight back if attacked, this might be all fun and games.  Except that Holder isn’t talking about those wars that still sort of look like wars.  He’s talking about a war paralleling the Soviet Threat, a war that is everywhere all the time, a war that encompasses the murder of anybody anywhere as an “act of war,” even if there’s nothing warlike about the victim or the situation other than the fact that we are mudering him or her. Read the rest of this entry →

A 51st State for Armed Robotic Drones

10:55 am in Uncategorized by David Swanson

Practicing their dronesmanship. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod)

Weaponized UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), also known as drones, have their own caucus in Congress, and the Pentagon’s plan is to give them their own state as well.

Under this plan, 7 million acres (or 11,000 square miles) of land in the southeast corner of Colorado, and 60 million acres of air space (or 94,000 square miles) over Colorado and New Mexico would be given over to special forces testing and training in the use of remote-controlled flying murder machines. The full state of Colorado is itself 104,000 square miles. Rhode Island is 1,000 square miles. Virginia, where I live, is 43,000 square miles.

The U.S. military (including Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines) is proceeding with this plan in violation of the public will, new state legislation on private property rights, an exceptionally strong federal court order, and a funding ban passed by the United States Congress, and in the absence of any approved Environmental Impact Statement. Public pressure has successfully put the law on the right side of this issue, and the military is disregarding the law.

I spoke with Jean Aguerre, whose organization “Not 1 More Acre” ( http://not1moreacre.net ) is leading the pushback against this madness. Jean told me she grew up, during the 1960s, on the vast grasslands of southeast Colorado, where the Comanche National Grasslands makes up part of a system of grasslands put in place to help the prairie recover from the dust bowl. The dust bowl, Aguerre says, was the worst environmental disaster in the United States until BP filled the Gulf of Mexico with oil. The dust bowl had been brought on by the government’s policy of requiring homesteaders to plow the prairie. The recovery programs created large tracts of land, of 100,000 acres and more, owned by “generational ranchers,” that is families that would hand the ranches off to their children.

Aguerre said she grew up on a ranch of incredible beauty and natural wealth, with a 165-million-year-old dinosaur track way and petroglyphs from 12,000 years back. Grasslands are the most threatened ecosystems in the world because they are so accessible, Aguerre says, and the only intact short grassland left in this country is the one being targeted for the “51st state.”

Round One began in the 1980s. Fort Carson, an Army base in Colorado Springs, had been kept open after World War II and now began looking for more land. The people of the area were opposed. The U.S. Congressman representing the area agreed to oppose any landgrab. But Senator Gary Hart took the opposite position. As a result, during the early 1980s, the Army Corps of Engineers started telling ranchers to sell out or risk seeing their land condemned and taken from them.

The ranch next to Aguerre’s is called Wine Glass Rourke. It was sold to a shill, as Aguerre describes the buyer. He ran the place into the ground with too many cattle, she says, and then sold it to the military, “And they were off and running!” With condemnations the military put together 250 thousand acres. Ranchers, along with their cattle, were moved off their own land by federal marshals. “We didn’t know when we’d be next,” Aguerre says of her own family.

Luckily for the people of Colorado and New Mexico, and all of us, Aguerre got involved in politics. She became a political director for Congressman Tim Werth who later became a U.S. senator. Aguerre took him to see the Wine Glass Rourke ranch and told him “Let’s take it back.” Werth dedicated his staff to the effort for three years, resulting in the transfer to the Forest Service of 17,000 key acres.

The Army used its new land less than twice a year for maneuvers, but caused horrible environmental damage whenever it did. That was the case for about 30 years, until the activity of recent years made everything that came before look sensitive and sustainable.

In the meantime, people like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were theorizing the transformation of the U.S. military into a force for robotic warfare. Aguerre believes it was in 1996 that a decision was made that the military would need a robotic warfare center. Around 1999 the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement was created. This precedes the more specific Site Environmental Impact Statements. The U.S. public, just like the public of any foreign nation where new U.S. bases are being planned, was told nothing.

In 2006, Aguerre was working in Oregon when friends started asking her to come home and help because something big was happening. An Army land expansion map had been leaked that showed plans for taking over 6.9 million acres, the whole southeast corner of the state. Aguerre thought she would come home for two weeks but has never left. An Environmental Impact Statement for the site was about to be released, and Aguerre knew that meant the project was pretty far along. She formed organizations and found a lawyer in Colorado Springs named Steve Harris to help. The two of them, she says, were absolutely dedicated to NEPA and FOIA. NEPA is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. FOIA is the Freedom of Information Act of 1966. “NEPA is intended to prevent our government taking our world apart piece by piece without our knowing it,” explains Aguerre.

Aguerre and others persuaded the area’s county commissioners to vote against the military’s plans in 2006, and the state legislature to pass a private property rights bill in January 2007 — a bill that required approval of such plans by the state legislature.

Ken Salazar was the military’s hired servant. He had been Attorney General of Colorado from 1999 to 2005. He was a U.S. Senator from 2005 to 2009. President Barack Obama has made him Secretary of the Interior. Around 2007, Jean Aguerre recounts, Salazar held a public meeting in Pueblo, Col., with about 300 ranchers packing the room. He turned his palms up to the ceiling and announced: “I will lift the golden curtain that falls at the end of El Paso county so that prosperity can flow onto the eastern plains.” This meant that military spending was economically beneficial. Military expansion, people were being told, was good for them — even if it stole their families’ land, and regardless of what momentum it created for the launching and continuing of wars.

“Instead of putting together frameworks for nonproliferation,” says Aguerre, “Ken Salazar worked to destroy the last intact short grass prairie because the money was too good.”

Senators Wayne Allard, who would join the military lobbyist company the Livingston Group within weeks of leaving the Senate, and Ken Salazar passed an authorization for taking land as part of the 2007 John Warner Defense Authorization Act. “None of the ranchers knew they were in line to be condemned for the second damn time,” says Aguerre.

John Salazar, Ken’s brother, at this time represented Colorado’s third congressional district, while Republican Marilyn Musgrave represented the fourth. Musgrave was persuaded by ranchers that there was no need for the government to take their land. Aguerre worked with Musgrave’s staff to draft a one-sentence funding ban. Aguerre and her allies then organized massive public pressure to recruit John Salazar as a Democratic co-sponsor. Ken Salazar failed in his effort to block this measure in the Senate. The ban passed both houses and became law, but it must be renewed every year.

In 2009, Aguerre and her allies won a federal court ruling throwing out the military’s Environmental Impact Statement with harsh and unequivocal language — “one of the strongest court orders under NEPA,” says Aguerre. By 2008, the military had begun using its land a lot more, and the court ruling did not stop them.

The funding ban, too, is not stopping increased activity. This past year, the funding ban was missing from a committee chairman’s markup in which it had appeared in previous years. Not 1 More Acre and its allies pressured Third-District Congressman Scott Tipton. People from all over the country phoned his office. They were told that as non-constituents their views did not matter. Aguerre advised people to reply: “When you pick my pocket you don’t ask what district I’m from.” Tipton was won over, and the funding ban, for what it’s worth, remains for now.

Nonetheless, says Aguerre, the military is proceeding with and increasing trainings and environmental destruction daily .

Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado and Tom Udall of New Mexico don’t receive high marks from Jean Aguerre. “Mark Udall on Armed Services and Michael Bennet on Agriculture sit with their thumbs in their pie. Udall has never once come to southeastern Colorado and looked young ranchers in the eye and said ‘this is why we need this military takeover of your lands.’”

Aguerre continues: “And Tom Udall puts out this pap the other day, mumbo jumbo about the Air Force. It’s not Air Force; it’s Special Operations. Aguerre said that her group and others are preparing a comment letter seeking legal standing to challenge the Air Force, and potentially to pry loose more information from the iron grip of our “transparent” government. Aguerre points out that the Air Force Special Operations Command Environmental Assessment was written by SAIC, a global military contractor that also makes voting machines.

“We found out that the state national guard is completely involved in UAV warfare,” says Aguerre. “So when your house floods and you don’t have the national guard there, they may be remotely piloting something somewhere else.”

Aguerre says that in 2006 she knew of four countries that were manufacturing armed UAVs, and that now she knows of 56. So, the argument that drones keep “people” out of harm’s way (with people redefined to mean U.S. citizens) doesn’t hold up very solidly. We have also already had a suicide bomb attack on a drone piloting location and had drone pilots commit suicide, not to mention the risks of long-term blowback, the damage being done to the rule of law, and all the human beings killed and injured from among the non-U.S. 95% of humanity.

Aguerre asks scientists who love unarmed UAVs to consider the full effect of supporting such technology. I would ask environmentalists to consider the full effect of not resisting the destruction of what Not 1 More Acre describes as:

• unique bioregions of canyonlands, forested mesas, grasslands and riparian systems providing habitat for diverse flora and fauna found nowhere else on Earth and the largest block of native prairie remaining on the High Plains;
• restored Dust Bowl lands – Comanche, Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands — offering robust safe haven to threatened and endangered species of plants and animals, including rare insects and reptiles yet to be named;
• wild rivers and complex wetlands vital to native fish, migrating birds, unique wildlife and environmental health.

I would ask opponents of drone warfare to consider the likely impact of setting aside 60 million acres of air space for testing drones.

“We cannot allow the sacrifice of our democracy to politicians who are bought by military contractors,” says Aguerre. “If they are able to get this 51st state for robotic warfare, I think the economy will be irretrievably lost. These are unbelievably beautiful and pristine lands. Our rural areas are where the genetically modified seeds are being planted, where the lands and mountains are being mined, and where the military is going to destroy an area the size of a state, because the rural people are so few. Gary Hart was able to attack the last short grass prairie without political cost.”

Why is there no political cost? Because “we can’t get the word out.”

Let’s help get the word out by sharing this link: http://not1moreacre.org