RSS Feed
May 3rd, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda Drone Summit Organizer’s Statement…
On April 28-29, CODEPINK, Reprieve and the Center for
Constitutional Rights hosted the first international Drone Summit in
Washington, DC. This statement was prepared by the three organizations
to address the widespread and rapidly expanding deployment of both
lethal and surveillance drones and the need for national governments and
international institutions to quickly move to establish appropriate
protections and regulations.Drone Summit Declaration
April 29, 2012
This statement emerged from the first international Drone Summit held in Washington, DC on April 28-29, 2012.
We recognize that rapid advances in robotic technology and related
communications and imaging technology create the opportunity for many
peaceful and beneficial uses of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also
known as drones.Lethal and spy drones, however, are proliferating in our home
countries and internationally without adequate public input, ethical
frameworks, or governmental and intergovernmental oversight and
rulemaking. This represents a pressing threat to human life, the rule of
law, civil liberties, human rights, ethical standards and international
peace and security.Governments and international organizations have a history of
formulating new rules, conventions and control regimes to regulate the
use of new technologies. Drone proliferation, however, represents the
advance of technology ahead of the democratic process and international
legal and ethical frameworks.Citizens worldwide have expressed deep concerns about the misuses and
abuses of drones, and demand the national governments and international
institutions quickly move to establish appropriate protections and
regulations.International
Drones have quickly become favored instruments of war-fighting,
surveillance, reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering because of the
lack of direct risk to the lives of soldiers and other government
agents.But the use of lethal drones causes the death and injury of valuable
victims’ lives, may violate national sovereignty, radicalize local
populations, increase popular support for anti-American terrorists and
precipitate more terrorist incidents and international conflicts.In the United States, the CIA and the U.S. military’s covert unit
Joint Special Operations Command maintain “kill lists” of individuals
suspected of terrorism, including U.S. citizens, who are being targeted
for death outside of zones of armed conflict, without charge, trial, or
conviction.The U.S. government argues that targeted killing outside of war zones
is permissible because the U.S. government is fighting a “global war”
against Al Qaeda but this justification not only distorts long-standing
and internationally accepted laws of war but also sets a dangerous
precedent for rendering the entire world a potential battlefield.The U.S. lethal drones strikes outside war zones stand in direct
violation of U.S. Constitution and international law, notably the Fifth
Amendment guarantee that no one shall be deprived of life without due
process and human rights law that similarly protects against arbitrary
deprivation of life and generally prohibits killings by states without
judicial process – unless an individual presents an imminent threat of
death or serious physical harm and lethal force is a last resort.The United Nations Charter permits the use of military force only if
authorized by the Security Council or if a state is acting in
self-defense after suffering an armed attack – a condition does not
apply to U.S drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.The targeted assassination program using drones, which started under
President Bush and expanded under the Obama administration, essentially
grants the executive the power to kill any U.S. citizen deemed a threat,
without any judicial oversight, or any of the rights afforded by our
Constitution.The executive branch of the U.S. government must not be allowed to
claim the extraordinary power to secretly kill anyone it categorizes as a
terrorist suspect, anywhere in the world, without transparency or
judicial oversight.The U.S. executive branch, by substituting its own bureaucratic
process for the due process required by the Constitution and
international law, is assuming the role of judge, jury, and executioner.The gross overreaches of power by the executive branch in its drone
strikes sets the stage for increasing violations of civil liberties and
the rule of law not only in international but also in domestic affairs.Domestic
Drone surveillance in rapidly increasing at home in border security,
public safety, homeland security, immigration enforcement, and drug
control operations in the absence of rules and regulations,Drones, equipped with the latest imaging technology such as facial
recognition and see-through-walls capabilities, constitute a new threat
to privacy and Fourth Amendment rights.Increasing drone surveillance by the Department of Homeland Security
and by federal and local police will have a restrictive effect on the
First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly.The Department of Homeland Security, in closely cooperation with U.S.
military bases, is using drones for surveillance at home, along our
land and seas borders, and increasingly for local law enforcement
purposes. This represents a dangerous merger of law enforcement,
homeland security, and national security strategies and operations and
increases the potential for greater U.S. military presence in domestic
affairs.With their capacity to undertake constant, persistent, and undetected
surveillance at higher altitudes than traditional aircraft, drones
represent a new threat to privacy.While technology has been advancing at a rapid pace, privacy law has
stagnated and a sea change in the thinking about privacy and
surveillance is needed.Therefore, we urge:
International
1) The United States should support the convening of an international
conference under the auspices of the United Nations to develop binding
legal standards for the use of drone systems, including a prohibition on
the use of autonomous lethal drones. Any military use of drones must be
strictly in compliance with the principles of international law, as
specified in the UN Charter, the laws of armed conflict, and
international humanitarian law and human rights law.2) The U.S. government should end drone strikes outside of armed
conflict, except where there is a present concrete, specific, and
imminent threats to life or physical safety; when there are no means
other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to address the
threats; and when there are comprehensive and effective oversight
mechanisms to ensure that individuals targeted represent an actual and
direct threat to the United States.3) The U.S. government should follow the War Powers Resolution in all
future armed conflicts, whether or not U.S. military personnel and
government agents are directly at risk, and the U.S. Congress should
properly exercises the authority provided by the War Power Act for
oversight and authorization of U.S. war-fighting.4) Regarding the CIA, a secretive agency that is supposed to focus on
intelligence gathering, the U.S. government should divest the CIA of
its authority and capability to carry out clandestine killings by
drones.5) The U.S. government should demilitarize its counterterrorism
strategy while increasing its conflict-resolution initiatives and
prioritizing a law enforcement approach to prevent and eliminate
terrorist threats, thereby following the nonmilitary approaches in the
UN Counter-Terrorism Strategy.6) Congress should prohibit the sale of drones to countries that systematically violate human rights.
Domestic
1) Drones in U.S. airspace should be subject to strict regulation to
ensure that their use does not eviscerate the privacy that Americans
have traditionally enjoyed and rightly expect. Drones should be
prohibited for indiscriminate mass surveillance.2) Federal Aviation Administration should address the privacy threats
associated with the increased use of drones in the United States as
part of its response to congressional and industry pressure to open
national airspace to drones.3) Federal Aviation Administration should give the public the
opportunity to comment on the public safety and privacy issues raised by
increased drone presence in U.S. skies.4) Drones should only be deployed: a) where there are specific and
articulable grounds to believe that the aerial surveillance will collect
evidence relating to a specific instance of criminal wrongdoing, b)
where the government has obtained a warrant based on probable cause, c)
where there is a geographically confined, time-limited emergency
situation in which particular individuals’ lives are at risk, or d) for
reasonable non-law enforcement purposes by non-law enforcement agencies
(such as geological inspections), where privacy will respected.5) The policies and procedures for the domestic use of aerial
surveillance technologies should be explicit and written, and should
made public. While it is legitimate for the police to keep the details
of particular investigations confidential, policy decisions regarding
overall deployment policies—including the privacy tradeoffs they may
entail—are a public matter and should be openly discussed.6) Purchases and deployment of drones by local law enforcement
agencies should be determined by democratic processes, which involve
public comments, rather than being made autonomously by government
directory or as the result grants from the Department of Justice or the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The DHS should terminate its
spending on new drones, associated payloads, and operating crews until
it conducts a clear, systemic examination of the costs and benefits
involved.7) Similarly, new drone operations by DHS should be suspended until
the department can conclusively demonstrate that these operations
improve the security of the homeland.Finally, we urge the U.S. government to:
1) Chart a course to promote the ethical and constructive use of
drones and to establish the standards and control regimes to ensure that
drone proliferation does not result in a surge of foreign interventions
and wars. Without having first established these legal and ethical
frameworks, the president and the U.S. security apparatus lack
credibility in their defense of U.S. drone attacks and spying.
2) Begin the process of formulating the legal and ethical guidelines to
regulate, shape, and constrain drone proliferation at home, thereby
establish a model for other nations interested in protecting civil
liberties, privacy of their citizens, and the integrity of the rule of
law.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
