Drone Killings: Come Clean

Lots of people are trying to deduce the extent of U.S. drone
killings. Why doesn't the U.S. just come clean?

How are we going to make progress in ending the menace of drones in the next few months -- i.e. in the first half of 2014?

We are going to have to carefully assess our audience, our messages, and where we put our time, energy, and resources. We need to be alert to what's happening in the broader culture.

It is also important that we are honest with ourselves about the moment we are in.  Is there adequate awareness of the issue? Have people started to become dissatisfied with what the government is doing? Are people ready to embrace the alternative(s) we are proposing?


Awareness: "What's a drone?"

In 2013, a much larger portion of the American public woke up to drones and what's being done with them.

Nonetheless, there are still people who ask, "What's a drone?"

NYC campaign by Essan Attia

My belief is that we will have a continuing need for building awareness.  I believe that it is important to the movement to find ways to increase awareness as efficiently as possible - i.e. using high-leverage communications mechanisms.  We need to accomplish as much as we possibly can without using up all our time, energy, and resources on this part of the campaign.

For instance, I wonder about: in a city like Chicago, would we be better off organizing a big teach-in? Or putting 100,000 stickers on lampposts that say "Drone Strikes: Out of Control"? Which would build more awareness?


Dissatisfaction: It's not just the secrecy ... it's the secrecy, the evasion, the lying, the spying ....

The heart of the campaign, in my opinion, should be find the Obama administration's greatest area of vulnerability with the public and focus on that.

Alternate caption: Same Spying, Different Day

Clearly, the public is outraged by NSA surveillance. Obama's weak response to this is leaving people more and more dissatisfied.  From every indication, this situation is going to worsen with each passing day.

The deeper impact is that people are realizing, "I've got zero protection from government surveillance -- they know everything about me -- and everything they do is a secret."  This pair of complementary realizations -- surveillance and invasion of privacy on the one hand, and secrecy and deceit on the other -- is likely to create a spiraling sense of cynicism and dissatisfaction.

The movement to stop drone surveillance and warfare can take advantage of this sentiment with a simple demand such as "Drone Killings: Come Clean!" This would play into the opinion that Americans already hold about the government: they're hiding the truth from us, and the truth is probably pretty bad.

Jan 16, 2014 - Congress keeps secret drone program in hands
of CIA. We think. We don't know for sure. Because
the measure is included in the classified annex to the
budget bill. (Or so it is rumored.)

And they are hiding the truth.  The United Nations has called for a full accounting of U.S. drone killings. The U.S. government is stonewalling.

The more the government refuses to "come clean" -- and they will refuse; it's in their nature -- the more dissatisfied members of the general public will become.

Imagine if every candidate who was campaigning for a House or Senate seat in 2014 was forced to take a position on the question, "Do you endorse the call for the Administration to come clean about its record of drone killings?"  It's a simple yes or no question.  If the answer is yes, then we have an ally.  If the answer is "no" -- or even "it depends" or "I don't understand the question" -- then the candidate is saddled with the label "sides with the Administration on hiding truth about drones."

NOTE: the fact that a large number of people have labored to do the best possible job of assembling the facts of the US drone killings despite U.S. government concealment -- see, for instance, this startling infographic illustrating drone strikes in Pakistan -- does not diminish the need for the U.S. government, itself, to come clean and publish the full and authoritative facts.  Rather, it serves to emphasize how shocking it is that the government continues to duck this obligation!

And, of course, we will make it clear that the reason the Administration is hiding truth about drones is that they don't have a satisfactory answer for how decisions about drone strikes are made.  As we have known all along, we need the public to think about how crummy the whole drone program is, and then they will be ready to be on our side. The best way to get them really thinking is to shine a spotlight on the secrecy, evasiveness, and deceit involved in the U.S. drone program.


Embracing the Alternative: Ground the drones

We are not yet at the point that enough Americans are dissatisfied with the solutions being offered by the government.  But we could get there soon.

Sunset

When people realize that the U.S. government doesn't have an acceptable answer to the question "Who decides?" . . . and when they realize that the U.S. government will never "come clean" about its drone killings  . . . they'll be ready to listen to the proposal offered by the movement against drones.

My expectation is that, when that time comes, our proposal will be: GROUND THE DRONES!

By that time, it will be the only proposal people will view as trustworthy.


Related posts

A new U.N. report makes it clear that the U.S. has to report fully on all its drone attacks.

(See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?)









One thing's for sure: there's a whole passel of advisers talking to Barack Obama every day about how things are progressing in key districts like the Illinois 12th. (And the Michigan 1st. And the Minnesota 8th. And ... ) I'd like to be a fly on the wall when they tell him the candidate is complaining about the latest anti-drones campaign there. ("Why the hell are there protesters at my appearance in Carbondale with signs that say, 'When will the DEMs stop being the party of Drone Execution and Murder' ???")

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

If the public will join us in asking the question "Who decides?" about drone executions, I believe they will rapidly come to realize that they are utterly dissatisfied with what the government is saying.

(See Who Decides? (When Drones are Judge, Jury, and Executioner) )

One issue that has a key place in the midterm elections in 2014, I believe, is surveillance.  With each passing day, I am hearing more and more people say that the surveillance issue is something that a wide spectrum of people are deeply upset about. That includes people on the right as well as people on the left -- people who don't usually talk with each other, much less work together for positive change!

(See The Surveillance Issue: The Fulcrum of the 2014 Election?)  

The $1.5 Billion Bribe: Obama Buying Cover From UN Report?

Nawaz Sharif

I thought I could be sure about one thing: on Friday, October 25, when the United Nations takes up the two reports on U.S. drone killings, Pakistan would be a strong voice demanding U.S. compliance with the recommendations of the report.

After all, at an all Parties Conference convened by Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan on in early September, the participants unanimously recommended the initiation of dialogue with all the stakeholders to curb terrorism and taking up the drones issue at the United Nations. The resolution said, in part:

"We are unanimous that the use of drones is not only a continued violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts of eliminating extremism and terrorism from our country. The Federal Government should consider the possibility of taking the drone issue to the United Nations as drone attacks are a violation of International Law."

Now, the newly-issue report of UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, makes it clear that the U.S. has to report fully on all its drone attacks.

Surprise, surprise:  Barack Obama has arranged for a little "talk" with the Pakistan leader prior to the U.N. event. As trumpeted in The New York Times, the U.S. will be dangling $1.5 billion in restored aid in front of the Pakistani leader.

Oh, and by the way, might the U.S. also suggest in that meeting that Sharif should remain silent about drones for a few days?

(An offer he can't refuse?)

This is not new in kind -- the U.S. dictates course of action (and inaction) to Pakistan all the time -- but in magnitude is probably the biggest thing since the Bush administration went to Musharraf shortly after 9/11 and said, "You're either with us or you're against us."

At a time when the international community is making remarkable strides in working together to avert conflict, confrontation, war, and injury and doing the difficult work of multilateral peacemaking, it is important that the U.S. avoid even the appearance of trying to undermine this work. Yes, "even" Pakistan deserves to have its own voice.

Maybe we need to demand transparency for all the talks between the U.S. and the Pakistani leaders. That's right -- all the nitty-gritty back-and-forth. The public can handle it. We've already seen The Godfather.

Related posts

The UN reports: No one has any illusions that getting the United States to obey the law will be easy. But at least now -- with the member states of the UN stating what's required in black and white -- we have a start.

(See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?)






On Sunday, September 7, 2013, the New York Times ran an account of a drone strike that had occurred the previous Thursday: U.S. Drone Strike Kills 6 in Pakistan, Fueling Anger . This short account is a case study in what is wrong with the U.S. drone wars.

(See September 5 in Pakistan: Another Day, Another Drone Killing)

There can be no question but that Americans and the rest of the world will eventually wake up to the terror being inflicted in their name on Pakistanis and others. The only question that will then remain will be whether Obama, Panetta, and the whole drone "kill chain" will be prosecuted as war criminals or as ordinary criminals. (And God help them if they are condemned to the limbo of "unlawful enemy combatant" - entitled to neither civil nor military justice.)   (See #NATOvictims - Drone Strikes in Pakistan )

2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?

In a post several weeks ago, I pointed to the way the media is being used in an unacceptable way to glide past the public's need to know the truth about U.S. drone killings.

Now, the United Nations is on the case.

In the newly-issue report of UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, there is a clear call for a big change:

[RECOMMENDATION] 108. States must be transparent about the development, acquisition and use of armed drones. They must publicly disclose the legal basis for the use of drones, operational responsibility, criteria for targeting, impact (including civilian casualties), and information about alleged violations, investigations and prosecutions.

[RECOMMENDATION] 110. States must ensure meaningful oversight of the use of drones and, where appropriate, investigation and accountability as well as reparations for their misuse.

In other words, no more sweeping the killings under the rug. The report makes clear that the U.S. has to report fully on all its drone attacks:

98. The various components of transparency require that the criteria for targeting and the authority that approves killings be known and that drone operations be placed in institutions that are able to disclose to the public the methods and findings of their intelligence, criteria used in selection of targets and precautions incorporated in such criteria.

99. One of the criticisms levelled against the current drone programmes has been the absence of an official record regarding the persons killed. States must also give guarantees of non-repetition and give effect to the right to reparations of victims of drone strikes.

100. Drone victims, just as any other human rights victims, and society at large have a right to have access to information relating to allegations of human rights violations and their investigation. The Human Rights Council has emphasized the need under international human rights law for transparency, highlighting victims’ right to know the truth about the perpetrators, their accomplices and their motives there. Likewise, during an armed conflict, relatives of persons killed or missing have the right to know the fate of their relatives.

It's there in black and white: heavy-duty reporting and verification requirements.

There's lots more, and I encourage everyone to read the full 24-page report: Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. But the above recommendations alone are crucial for laying the groundwork for everything that we are trying to do to put a stop to the U.S. drone killings. It all starts with getting the truth out in the open.

Questions for follow-up

(1) Will media outlets commit to boycott all off-the-record sourcing about U.S. drone killing, and support the call for full, on-the-record transparency by the U.S. government?

(2) Will the U.S. affirmatively comply with its obligations ["97. Accountability for violations of international human rights law (or international humanitarian law) is not a matter of choice or policy; it is a duty under domestic and international law"] by creating a full public register of all drone killings that it has carried out -- by date certain?

(3) Will the U.S. honor recommendation 112 ("Drone operators must not be placed within a chain of command that requires them to report within institutions that are unable to disclose their operations") by immediately terminating CIA drone operations, as well as all other secret drone operations?


No one has any illusions that getting the United States to obey the law will be easy. But at least now -- with the member states of the UN stating what's required in black and white -- we have a start.


Related posts

First Reps. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) called the U.S. on the carpet for dodging the call from the international community to come clean about its drone killings. Then Reps. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) submitted a bill calling for drone transparency. So ... are we finally going to get the truth?

(See REAL Progressives Demand that the U.S. Come Clean on Drone Killings)

At the end of the first day of the 2012 CODEPINK drone conference, I came to a realization: the fundamental problem that we had all gathered to address is that drones render killing 100% invisible. And as long as the killing is invisible, we lose the most powerful tool we have for fighting the killing: the disgust and outrage of the general public.

(See Make Drone Killing 100% VISIBLE!)



We are allowed to know all about these killings, provided we're prepared to believe the statements of a person we can't confirm exists about a program which is not acknowledged to be happening. We are living in a nightmare that makes Philip K. Dick's dystopias look cozy in comparison.

(See Drones and Zero Accountability Government)












On Sunday, September 7, 2013, the New York Times ran an account of a drone strike that had occurred the previous Thursday: U.S. Drone Strike Kills 6 in Pakistan, Fueling Anger . This short account is a case study in what is wrong with the U.S. drone wars.

(See September 5 in Pakistan: Another Day, Another Drone Killing)













In other words, pretty much anybody and everybody gets lumped together with "terrorists"; the vaunted "precision" of U.S. military strikes isn't precise at all.

(See U.S. "Precision Strikes" in a Nutshell )

OK, You Have Our Attention. Let's Put a Stop to ALL These Criminal Weapons!

More on Syria: Where Have We Ended Up?

How many of Barack Obama's words about Syria will be used against him when the U.S. is indicted for its crimes using drones?

As President Obama insisted two nights ago:

When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security. (Emphasis added. Full transcript from Washington Post.)

The UN is on the verge of taking action on U.S. extrajudicial executions using drones, and the movement against drone warfare is preparing for another wave of nationwide protests. Person after person is noticing the eerie resonance of Barack Obama's accusations against Syria with the crimes of his own administration against people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere.

A friend wrote to me from Wisconsin:

Yesterday evening I watched Obama fill the air with hypocrisy. It struck me he mentioned children dying 3 times. He also talked of them writhing. Obviously this is a ploy to pull the heartstrings of Americans. Of course it struck me that he is killing children in Pakistan and elsewhere and the fact thousands are being killed, and hundreds of thousands killed by the U.S.

Bob Koehler, the syndicated columnist based here in Chicago, calls Obama's behavior "cherry-picking evil":

So Barack Obama, in his role as president, belies both his own intelligence and that of — my guess — most of his constituents when he asks us to play along with the game. Yes, poison gas is a ghastly evil (though who actually used it in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta remains uncertain), but what a ruse to muster all one’s outrage over images of “men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath, a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk” — and then use that outrage as the pretext to justify counter-actions on our part that are equally indiscriminate in their delivery of hell to the same people. Virtually every aspect of modern warfare fits the description Obama drew as a sort of “red line” of bad behavior: the use of weaponry that kills on a mass scale, making no distinction between soldier and infant. We are, after all, the nation that developed nuclear weapons and, over the next half century, spent some $5.5 trillion playing arms race with the Soviet Union and, ultimately, with no one at all. We’re still developing further generations of “tactical” nukes, bleeding more than $30 billion annually into this insanity. (Read Bob's entire column: Cherry-Picking Evil)

Sure, the world needs to stop Syria's chemical weapons. But what about the United States' drones? Which leads me to another metaphor -- one that found resonance with my friends from Pakistan on Twitter -- "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Isn't it time we put a stop to ALL these criminal weapons? And the criminals who use them?

Get involved in the movement to stop drone warfare.

More on Syria: Where Have We Ended Up?

Related posts

In my opinion, the reason to focus on drones is this: when we focus on drones, the general public is able to "get," to an unusual extent, the degree to which popular consent has been banished from the process of carrying out state violence. (Sure, it was banished long ago, but the absence of a human in the cockpit of a drone suddenly makes a light bulb go off in people's heads.) It takes some prodding, but people can sense that drone use somehow crosses a line. And that opens up the discussion about how our consent has been eliminated from the vast range of US militarism.

(See "Why focus on drone attacks?")

"Because of the intensified division of labor," the narrator explains, "many technicians and scientists can no longer recognize the contribution the have made to weapons of destruction." "Our department extracts lareic, oleic, and naptha acids . . . . "  "I'm a chemist. What should I do? If I develop a substance, it can be good for humanity . . . ."  "Besides napalm, Dow Chemical produces 800 other products . . . ." Does this familiar to you?


(See American Fire: Still Spreading, Still Inextinguishable)

The recurring theme of the The Hurt Locker is "We're done here." The tension of each encounter with a bomb is followed by the moment when the hero successfully defuses the bomb, and then announces "We're done here." The deeper theme of the movie is psychological: the solder is addicted to the excitement. He is unable to go on with a normal life. He keeps going back, again and again, to Iraq, to defuse more bombs. (HE is NEVER "done".)

(See DU: Will we ever be able to say "We're done here" ? )

Will the UN Be Talking About Chemical Weapons Instead of Drones In September? (Why not BOTH?)

No matter which way the Congressional vote on Syria goes, it seems quite clear that the U.S. has teed up an opportunity for its ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, to direct the attention of the General Assembly to the question of chemical weapons when it reconvenes in the middle of September.

This is convenient, because without something else to focus on it has seemed very likely that the nations of the world gathered in New York City in September would finally get around to focusing on U.S. drone crimes.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power
with President Obama

Inarguably, there's nothing like the drama of the threat of U.S. cruise missile strikes to distract from the drama of U.S. drone strikes.

Ambassador Power, as a leading theorist of how the international community can and should respond to crimes by state actors against civilian populations, cannot be expected to forgo the opportunity to address the world on the issue when the UN General Assembly meets. And a legitimate question does exist: if a state attacks civilians, what recourse does the world community have? Can it hold that state "accountable"? Short of retaliating with military force?

"A Problem From Hell":
America and the Age of Genocide
by Samantha Power

This question is especially germane, given that the UN is expected to be holding a report about crimes against civilians by the dominant military power in the world. How, exactly, is the UN supposed to hold that power "accountable"?

So here's a modest proposal: the United Nations should use the occasion of the convening of the General Assembly to address both the actions of the Syrian government (including use of force against civilians) and the actions of the United States government (including the use of drone strikes to kill civilians and terrorize civilian populations). They should take up the difficult question: what is the authority of the UN to put a stop to crimes -- especially when the crimes are carried out by the powerful (or clients of the powerful)?

Useful background may be provided by Samantha Power's book, A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. Among its most useful contributions is to stimulate us to think deeply about the crime of genocide -- in particular, to think about it less in terms of the sheer numbers of victims and more in terms of the power relations between perpetrator and victim, and the effect of destroying communities through violence.

The Obama administration has suggested there is a "red line" -- a point where something needs to be done. Perhaps its time for the world community to join in that discourse.


Related posts

A new U.N. report makes it clear that the U.S. has to report fully on all its drone attacks.

(See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?)

I hate to burst Congress' (and Obama's) bubble, but if the declaration of war on Syria they're debating is predicated on crimes involving chemical weapons, they're usurping the authority properly assigned to another body.

(See Chemical Weapons? Tell it to the ICC! )

The recurring theme of the The Hurt Locker is "We're done here." The tension of each encounter with a bomb is followed by the moment when the hero successfully defuses the bomb, and then announces "We're done here." The deeper theme of the movie is psychological: the solder is addicted to the excitement. He is unable to go on with a normal life. He keeps going back, again and again, to Iraq, to defuse more bombs. (HE is NEVER "done".)

(See DU: Will we ever be able to say "We're done here" ? )

The United Nations, Drones, and Garry Davis

[UPDATE October 17, 2013]

The report of UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson, was released today. Its conclusions include:

In particular, the Special Rapporteur urges the United States to further clarify its position on the legal and factual issues raised herein; to declassify, to the maximum extent possible, information relevant to its lethal extraterritorial counter-terrorism operations; and to release its own data on the level of civilian casualties inflicted through the use of remotely piloted aircraft, together with information on the evaluation methodology used.

(Read the full 24-page report: Promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism)

IN ADDITION, the report of UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns, was also released today. Its conclusions include:

States must be transparent about the development, acquisition and use of armed drones. They must publicly disclose the legal basis for the use of drones, operational responsibility, criteria for targeting, impact (including civilian casualties), and information about alleged violations, investigations and prosecutions.

POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS: 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?

(Read the full 24-page report: Extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions)

[UPDATE: October 16, 2013] Among much speculation that she would be the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Pakistan human rights activist Malala Yousafzai met with Barack Obama at the White House.  Malala explained, "I also expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fuelling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact." (See Malala Yousafzai warns Barack Obama against Pakistan drone attacks)

This is extremely important, because we are just days away from the report on U.S. drone killings by Ben Emmerson, UN special rapporteur on counter terrorism. (More under "Exhibit B" below.)

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon spoke about drones in Pakistan in early August, saying:

"As I have often and consistently said, the use of armed drones, like any other weapon, should be subject to long-standing rules of international law, including international humanitarian law."

and

"Let me be clear that these new tools, such as unmanned unarmed aerial vehicles, are for information purposes only."

(See: UN chief, during Pakistan visit, says drone strikes must comply with international law)

At an all Parties Conference convened by Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan on in early September, the participants unanimously recommended the initiation of dialogue with all the stakeholders to curb terrorism and taking up the drones issue at the United Nations. The resolution said, in part:

"We are unanimous that the use of drones is not only a continued violation of our territorial integrity but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts of eliminating extremism and terrorism from our country. The Federal Government should consider the possibility of taking the drone issue to the United Nations as drone attacks are a violation of International Law."

The updates above -- taken together with the specific UN investigations discussed below -- hold promise that the issue of drones will get a high priority when the UN meets in its fall session.


EXHIBIT A: UN High Commission for Human Rights

UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights Navanethem Pillay

In May, 2013, the UN High Commission for Human Rights convened in Geneva, and drones were on the agenda:

"In one the strongest indictments yet from a top UN official, the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva has stated that lack of transparency in the use of armed drones has created a legal and accountability vacuum. Ms Navi Pillay also said Monday that “measures that violate human rights do not uproot terrorism, they nurture it.” It is for the first time that a top UN official has come out with stern condemnation of US policy on these sensitive subjects."

(See UN official condemns use of armed drones, May 28, 2013.)

The Commission debated a report calling for a ban on killer drones:

"Report author Christof Heyns, a South African professor of human rights law, calls for a worldwide moratorium on the 'testing, production, assembly, transfer, acquisition, deployment and use' of killer robots until an international conference can develop rules for their use."

(See New U.N. Report Calls For The Cessation Of All Military Drone Fabrication, May 4, 2013.)

EXHIBIT B: UN Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism

UN Special Rapporteur on Counter
Terrorism Ben Emmerson

A report on drone killings will be made to the UN General Assembly in the fall by the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism

"On 24 January 2013, UN Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism Ben Emmerson, launched an inquiry 'into the civilian impact, and human rights implications of the use drones and other forms of targeted killing for the purpose of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency' in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, and the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories]. The investigation, carried out by ten UN experts, including Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions Christof Heyns, aims at 'determining whether there is a plausible allegation of unlawful killing' in those cases where individuals are killed by drone strikes. The results of these inquiries will be presented at UN General Assembly's next session in October 2013.

(See "Drones War in Yemen": Report presented to UN experts , July 1, 2013.)

EXHIBIT C: UN General Assembly - Fall 2013

The UN General Assembly's 68th Session opens on Tuesday, September 17, 2013. General debate is scheduled for Tuesday, September 24 to Friday, September 27; and Monday, September 30 up to Friday, October 4. (See Schedule of General Assembly plenary and related meetings.)

Dates for specific meetings and reports will be released in the days ahead.

Reuters reports another factor that puts drones in the spotlight at the UN this fall: due to "rules of members states," deployment of a UN surveillance drone in the Congo is expected to be delayed until December. (Full story: "U.N. deployment of surveillance drone in Congo delayed to December" )

Stay tuned . . . .

*   *   * 

 
Original July 30, 2013 intro to this post:

Garry Davis died too soon.

Garry Davis was a visionary who translated his anguish at participating in mass killing as a bomber pilot in the "Good War" (WWII) into a call for an end to national governments and an end to war. (See Garry Davis, Man of No Nation Who Saw One World of No War, Dies at 91.)

Davis issued himself passport No. 1 for the World Government of World Citizens, and encouraged others to get one, too.

Laugh if you will, but 950,000 people have taken him up on it.

Davis died on July 24. If he had lived a few month's longer, he might have seen a powerful vindication of his antiwar vision. Several arms of the United Nations have already begun to investigate the criminal drone assaults launched by the United States government under President Barack Obama, and it there is a possibility that action will be called for by the full General Assembly when it convenes in late September in New York.

When you go to the UN website, it says, "Welcome to the United Nations. It's your world."

Garry Davis saw that, as long as nations are calling the shots, the way of the world will continue to be "might makes right" and more war. The only solution is to have a higher authority and a higher loyalty. A case in point is the United Nations' role in stopping and prosecuting the crimes of the United States.

Let's hope the UN gives us something Garry Davis would have been proud of.


Related posts

A new U.N. report makes it clear that the U.S. has to report fully on all its drone attacks.

(See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?)












 

Many people will argue that it was only because the U.S. made a threat of force that Syria offered to enter into an agreement on chemical weapons. The sequence of events certainly suggests some relationship between the two.

(See "OR ELSE!" (What the U.S. threat of force against Syria teaches us) )

How do you formulate a statement that can somehow convince the United States to eliminate its threatening nuclear weapons?  How do you formulate the 10th request? Or the 100th? Knowing all the time that the United States is in the position -- will always be in the position -- to say, "No" ?  At what point does it dawn on you that the United States will never give up its nuclear weapons, because it has the power and the rest of the world doesn't?

(See 360 Degree Feedback in New York (2014 NPT Prepcom and How the World Views the United States))