SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Why We Are Walking to Hancock Air Force Base
Drone operators in Nevada mistakenly attacked, using an unmanned predator drone, a convoy of Afghan civilians. "No way to know -- no way to tell from here" said the "pilot" and camera operator as they surveyed the carnage, 7,000 miles away, on the screen.
Up to 23 people were killed and more wounded including women and children, according to an April 10 article in the Los Angeles Times. The tragedy highlights the legal, moral and practical problems with the use of drones.
Apr 19, 2011
Drone operators in Nevada mistakenly attacked, using an unmanned predator drone, a convoy of Afghan civilians. "No way to know -- no way to tell from here" said the "pilot" and camera operator as they surveyed the carnage, 7,000 miles away, on the screen.
Up to 23 people were killed and more wounded including women and children, according to an April 10 article in the Los Angeles Times. The tragedy highlights the legal, moral and practical problems with the use of drones.
Because it is our responsibility to actively call our country to follow domestic and international human rights laws, we are walking to Hancock Base, where drones are maintained, to demand an end to the use of unmanned predator drones.
Targeted killings by the use of unmanned aircraft drones by the United States are intentional, premeditated and deliberate use of lethal force in violation of U.S. and international human rights law.
The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions said the use of drones creates "a highly problematic blurring and expansion of the boundaries of the applicable legal frameworks -- human rights law, the laws of war and the law applicable to the use of inter-state force. ... The result has been the displacement of clear legal standards with a vaguely defined license to kill, and the creation of a major accountability vacuum. ... In terms of the legal framework, many of these practices violate straightforward applicable legal rules."
Despite their reputation for being precise and effective, drones kill 50 people for each intended target, according to a New York Times article from May 2009. In congressional testimony in March 2009, counterterrorism consultant David Kilcullen said drone attacks give "rise to a feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism well outside the parts of the country where we are mounting those attacks."
Most of us can relate: If someone we love or even Americans living in another state were killed by a drone, most of us would be angry and some would seek revenge. Thus, drones not only kill innocent civilians and violate human rights laws -- they also increase the likelihood of terror attacks, the very problem they are supposed to solve. Law enforcement and economic development offer more effective moral and ethical solutions to the problems of extremism and terrorism.
Maybe this troubles you, but with the economic worries you think it has to take a backburner to local economic concerns. Think again! The war in Afghanistan will cost U.S. taxpayers $107.3 billion this year just in direct costs. Most of us are paying $1,000-$3,000 a year in direct costs alone.
Just think, we could stop killing civilians and rebuild our country. It is possible.
For more information, see https://vcnv.org/project/drone-warfare-awareness.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Drone operators in Nevada mistakenly attacked, using an unmanned predator drone, a convoy of Afghan civilians. "No way to know -- no way to tell from here" said the "pilot" and camera operator as they surveyed the carnage, 7,000 miles away, on the screen.
Up to 23 people were killed and more wounded including women and children, according to an April 10 article in the Los Angeles Times. The tragedy highlights the legal, moral and practical problems with the use of drones.
Because it is our responsibility to actively call our country to follow domestic and international human rights laws, we are walking to Hancock Base, where drones are maintained, to demand an end to the use of unmanned predator drones.
Targeted killings by the use of unmanned aircraft drones by the United States are intentional, premeditated and deliberate use of lethal force in violation of U.S. and international human rights law.
The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions said the use of drones creates "a highly problematic blurring and expansion of the boundaries of the applicable legal frameworks -- human rights law, the laws of war and the law applicable to the use of inter-state force. ... The result has been the displacement of clear legal standards with a vaguely defined license to kill, and the creation of a major accountability vacuum. ... In terms of the legal framework, many of these practices violate straightforward applicable legal rules."
Despite their reputation for being precise and effective, drones kill 50 people for each intended target, according to a New York Times article from May 2009. In congressional testimony in March 2009, counterterrorism consultant David Kilcullen said drone attacks give "rise to a feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism well outside the parts of the country where we are mounting those attacks."
Most of us can relate: If someone we love or even Americans living in another state were killed by a drone, most of us would be angry and some would seek revenge. Thus, drones not only kill innocent civilians and violate human rights laws -- they also increase the likelihood of terror attacks, the very problem they are supposed to solve. Law enforcement and economic development offer more effective moral and ethical solutions to the problems of extremism and terrorism.
Maybe this troubles you, but with the economic worries you think it has to take a backburner to local economic concerns. Think again! The war in Afghanistan will cost U.S. taxpayers $107.3 billion this year just in direct costs. Most of us are paying $1,000-$3,000 a year in direct costs alone.
Just think, we could stop killing civilians and rebuild our country. It is possible.
For more information, see https://vcnv.org/project/drone-warfare-awareness.
Drone operators in Nevada mistakenly attacked, using an unmanned predator drone, a convoy of Afghan civilians. "No way to know -- no way to tell from here" said the "pilot" and camera operator as they surveyed the carnage, 7,000 miles away, on the screen.
Up to 23 people were killed and more wounded including women and children, according to an April 10 article in the Los Angeles Times. The tragedy highlights the legal, moral and practical problems with the use of drones.
Because it is our responsibility to actively call our country to follow domestic and international human rights laws, we are walking to Hancock Base, where drones are maintained, to demand an end to the use of unmanned predator drones.
Targeted killings by the use of unmanned aircraft drones by the United States are intentional, premeditated and deliberate use of lethal force in violation of U.S. and international human rights law.
The U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions said the use of drones creates "a highly problematic blurring and expansion of the boundaries of the applicable legal frameworks -- human rights law, the laws of war and the law applicable to the use of inter-state force. ... The result has been the displacement of clear legal standards with a vaguely defined license to kill, and the creation of a major accountability vacuum. ... In terms of the legal framework, many of these practices violate straightforward applicable legal rules."
Despite their reputation for being precise and effective, drones kill 50 people for each intended target, according to a New York Times article from May 2009. In congressional testimony in March 2009, counterterrorism consultant David Kilcullen said drone attacks give "rise to a feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism well outside the parts of the country where we are mounting those attacks."
Most of us can relate: If someone we love or even Americans living in another state were killed by a drone, most of us would be angry and some would seek revenge. Thus, drones not only kill innocent civilians and violate human rights laws -- they also increase the likelihood of terror attacks, the very problem they are supposed to solve. Law enforcement and economic development offer more effective moral and ethical solutions to the problems of extremism and terrorism.
Maybe this troubles you, but with the economic worries you think it has to take a backburner to local economic concerns. Think again! The war in Afghanistan will cost U.S. taxpayers $107.3 billion this year just in direct costs. Most of us are paying $1,000-$3,000 a year in direct costs alone.
Just think, we could stop killing civilians and rebuild our country. It is possible.
For more information, see https://vcnv.org/project/drone-warfare-awareness.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.