From: PressTV
COMMENT - Nice article by Dave Swanson. Go get Nick Mottern's Ordinance, up on our site and on his, Know Drones, to stop drones in your town.
By David Swanson
 |
| US-drone protest, 03 Apr 2013 |
Tue May 14, 2013 5:21PM GMT
1
The
trouble with this, of course, is that most of your city council members
approve of murdering foreigners with drones. Thus it becomes a harder
measure to pass. What we want, therefore, is something that does not
conflict with the resolution above but addresses itself to local, state,
or US skies. To ease passage most swiftly, we want local resolutions
that don't commit localities to anything, but simply make
recommendations to states and the federal government. However, I suspect
that -- as in Charlottesville -- a statement of local policy will not
be a deal breaker."
Local resolutions have helped advance many issues, including war opposition, when they've been passed in large numbers.
When we passed a resolution in Charlottesville, Va., last year
opposing any attack on Iran, I heard from numerous cities that wanted to
do the same. As far as I know, none did. I heard back from some that
they'd been told it was anti-Semitic to oppose a US attack on Iran. I
didn't have an answer to that -- not a printable one anyway.
When Charlottesville passed a resolution against drones in February
of this year, I heard from people all over the country again. Since that
time, to my knowledge, one little town in Minnesota called St.
Bonifacius has passed something, while dozens and dozens have tried and
failed. The problem seems to be that drones can have good uses as well
as bad.
Of course, that's grounds for halting the lawless and reckless
spread of drones until we can figure out any ways in which their good
use can be compatible with our Constitutional rights. But that would
make too much sense. When there's money to be made, technology to be
played with, and terrorists to destroy our freedoms if we don't hurry up
and destroy them first, the American way is full steam ahead. But I
actually think I might have at least a partial answer this time.
There are two separable issues to be addresses in anti-drone resolutions and ordinances and laws and treaties. One is weaponization. The other is surveillance. I'm not aware of anyone yet having any difficulty getting their local officials to oppose weaponized drones. Most are unaware that some US localities already have drones armed with rubber bullets and tear gas.
Most consider it a crazy idea -- as they should. But it is an idea
that should be addressed, because it is not science fiction; it is a
dystopia that is already upon us. Getting localities in the United
States to oppose the use of weaponized drones in their skies should be
easy. Having thus established that our towns can address the problem of
drones, we could come back and deal with the complex matter of
surveillance.
The best solution on surveillance may be the one produced by the
Rutherford Institute and embodied in the Charlottesville resolution.
There is nothing in that resolution that prevents a drone from
delivering your coffee or checking out a forest fire. I wish there were,
but there actually isn't. While I'd like stronger resolutions, I think
at this point the movement would benefit from passing any resolutions at
all.
And I think the way to make it simpler, clearer, and extremely easy
would be to ask our local representatives to simply oppose weaponized
drones. Ideally, of course, I'd like to see cities and counties join the
movement to ban weaponized drones from the world. Such a resolution
might read:
Weaponized drones (or unmanned aerial vehicles) -- including those
carrying lethal weapons such as hellfire missiles, and those carrying
non-lethal weapons such as tear gas or rubber bullets -- are no more
acceptable than chemical weapons or land mines. Whether these drones are
controlled by pilots or act autonomously, whether they are publicly or
privately owned, they can have no place in a civilized world and should
be banned. The City of ________ urges the State of _________, the US
Congress, and the US State Department to pursue state, national, and
international prohibitions on the development, ownership, or use of
weaponized drones.
The trouble with this, of course, is that most of your city council
members approve of murdering foreigners with drones. Thus it becomes a
harder measure to pass. What we want, therefore, is something that does
not conflict with the resolution above but addresses itself to local,
state, or US skies. To ease passage most swiftly, we want local
resolutions that don't commit localities to anything, but simply make
recommendations to states and the federal government. However, I suspect
that -- as in Charlottesville -- a statement of local policy will not
be a deal breaker. Here's a version of the Charlottesville resolution
stripped down to the weaponized drone issue alone (just delete the last
14 words to commit your city to nothing):
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the City Council of ________ calls on the United States Congress and the State of ________ to adopt legislation precluding the domestic use of drones equipped with anti-personnel devices, meaning any projectile, chemical, electrical, directed-energy (visible or invisible), or other device designed to harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact a human being; and pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones.
Opponents of this resolution will be, and should be denounced for
being, supporters of putting weaponized drones in our skies. Supporters
can remain technology lovers. They can continue to believe every move we
make should be videotaped by Big Brother. They can plow right ahead
with their brilliant idea for replacing the pizza guy with a drone. But
they will be taking a stand on a popular issue that has no opposition.
There is no organized popular movement in your town in support of
putting weaponized drones in the sky.
There's not even a concerted effort by police, or even by the drone
profiteers. They can make big bucks off surveillance. They can fill the
skies with drones first. The weapons can largely come later. They are
not prepared for us to build a movement against weaponized drones and
then turn our focus toward the lesser offense of spying. And by us I
mean essentially everyone. Libertarians and leftists are in agreement on
this, and so is everybody else.
So, you can build public pressure. It's not hard. In
Charlottesville, we brought a crowd of people to two consecutive city
council meetings and dominated the public speaking period. You should
watch the videos of the January 22nd and February 4th meetings here. We
published a column in the newspaper making the case, including the case
that it is proper for cities to speak up on national issues. We
organized an event in front of City Hall on the day before the vote. We
displayed a giant model drone produced by New York anti-drone activist
Nick Mottern.
Our little stunt produced coverage on the two television channels
and in the newspaper. I asked people to commit to attending the meeting
on a Facebook page. And when I spoke in the packed meeting, I asked
those in agreement to stand. Most of the room stood.
We presented a weak resolution at the first meeting, which put the
issue on the agenda. We then proposed a stronger one, which one of the
best city council members put into the official agenda for the second
meeting. At the second meeting, the council members negotiated a
compromise. You might want to try that approach, which we stumbled into
unplanned.
You can also lay the groundwork. We invited Ann Wright and Medea
Benjamin and Nick Mottern and Kathy Kelly and other great speakers to
Charlottesville in the months leading up to this resolution effort. This
was not part of a plan, but we knew that it never hurts to educate
people about their government's crimes. If you sign the international
petition to ban weaponized drones from the world, you'll see a list of
organizations at the bottom. Those are the places to go for resources,
speakers, props, reports, flyers, and books that can help you in this
effort. You can also print out a mammoth list of signatures on the
petition to impress your elected officials. Or you can gather signatures
locally and add them.
It's time we made things nice and simple. Are we in favor of killer flying robots over our homes and schools, or are we not?
Once we've given the obvious answer, maybe we'll start asking each other whether we really think Pakistanis disagree.
DS/PR
David Swanson
is an American activist, blogger and author. He served for a year as
media coordinator for the International Labor Communications
Association. In May 2005, Swanson helped make the Downing Street memo
known in the United States and discussed in Congress. He co-founded After Downing Street
and led an ongoing campaign to impeach President George W. Bush and
Vice President Dick Cheney. Swanson continues to work closely with the
peace movement and often leads campaigns to end the Iraq War and punish
those involved in launching that war. His Swanson's books include War Is A Lie.
He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and
works as Campaign Coordinator for the online activist organization
http://rootsaction.org. He hosts Talk Nation Radio.
More articles by David Swanson
No comments:
Post a Comment