Visits: 182
Dangers of Drone Warfare
Unique capabilities of aerial drones for (1) surveillance and (2) killing justify an international ban on weaponized drones on both military and police drone surveillance.
SECTION 1.
Drone surveillance – Drones have the power to intensively monitor and record human activity and communications to a degree not possible by other means.
Drone surveillance, which enables drone attacks and attacks by conventional weapons, based on unique technology with unprecedented “ability to break down any practical privacy safeguards”. The user has the capability to visually, and through heat sensing and other means, intimately monitor and record the lives of individuals, groups and populations, on a continuous basis, over days, weeks and months, and to sweep into its gaze an ever-widening group of people who may in some way be associated with those who were originally “targeted”, and who hence become suspect. At the same time, drone surveillance often provides a profoundly inaccurate understanding of the thinking and actions of people under surveillance.
In Kirsten Johnson’s 2015 documentary “The Above”, a tethered U.S. Army surveillance blimp floats endlessly in the sky over Kabul, Afghanistan, like an odd-shaped, daytime moon. In the only spoken words in the 8 ½ – minute film, an Afghan man says:
“The Almighty God is the creator of the world and can see everything.
He sees the sky, the earth, and under the ground. God sees everything.
God knows everything. Be aware that He will find out everything.
Who created this balloon? God created the man who made this.
God gave him the brain to create this balloon, and God knows every thought that he thinks.”
After showing a similar blimp over Aberdeen, Maryland, which the U.S. military said had no cameras but is radar-equipped to detect long-range missile attacks, the film closes with this:
“U.S. Army 1st Brigade Afghanistan After Action Report:
“Recommendation: Fly the Persistent Ground Surveillance System (the blimp) as much as possible even if the camera systems/feed is broken. Insurgents and Local Nationals alike believe the blimp can see everything and will act differently when it is up.”
Mitchell Gray observes in the journal Surveillance and Society that the power of surveillance “transforms those under its gaze.”
The “gaze” of drones allows governments to significantly challenge, if not totally remove, the sanctity of privacy essential to a human sense of individuality and freedom in public and in private places.
Depending on their size, and the video and electronic gear that they carry, drones can enable governments to gather an unprecedented amount of digital information on individuals and groups that, when processed with the assistance of fallible artificial intelligence (AI), can be used for monitoring, sanctions, blackmail, targeting and assassination.
The unique power of the drone is in being able, with remarkable persistence, to take a wide range of surveillance equipment into spaces, otherwise not easily accessible.
For example, in 2019 an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) drone reportedly entered the Gaza City apartment of alleged Palestinian Islamic Jihad commander Baha Abu al-Ata “to indicate his precise location.” Minutes later, the report said, an IDF air attack was launched on the apartment, killing Abu al-Ata and his wife. Four or his children and a neighbor were reported injured.
The drone is essential to gathering the following types of critical video and electronic information that cannot be so quickly and remotely gathered on individuals, groups, and masses of people in any other way.
Weaponized Drones – technological capabilities
1.A. Video and Hyperspectral Information
(1) Biometric Identification – Physical measurements of faces and bodies of individuals, hair and eye color and other physical characteristics, including a person’s gait when walking, their speed of movement and gestures, are used to identify and stalk. However, biometric technology reportedly has serious flaws with respect to accuracy and hackability.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office reports that between 2008 and 2017, the U.S. Department of Defense used biometric and forensic data (such as fingerprints) to capture or kill 1,700 individuals, deny 92,000 individuals access to military bases and put 213,000 people on a DOD “watchlist.”
(2) Facial Recognition – This technology uses facial biometric data to match faces under surveillance with faces already held on file in a database of targeted people. This technology has been found to be particularly inaccurate and harmful to blacks, Hispanics and other people of color.
This technology therefore presents an extraordinarily dangerous threat to the public in current war zones where the vast majority of people are people of color.
The U.S. state of California has banned police from using facial recognition technology, but its use is permitted elsewhere and the technology is widely available and being used.
Flight Global reports that General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, maker of the workhorse of U.S. drone killing, the MQ-9 Reaper, announced in 2020 that it is testing an on-board system that will use facial recognition technology to identify an enemy combatant and “autonomously find, track and propose targets to human commanders.”
(3) Emotional Analysis – A technology of AI-assisted analysis has been developed in which cameras record extremely minute, flickering changes in facial, voice, along with other features in an attempt to determine emotions, as well as both conscious and unconscious thoughts.
Shosana Zoboff explains this process in “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”:
“This complex of machine intelligence is trained to isolate, capture and render the most subtle and intimate behaviors, from an inadvertent blink to a jaw that slackens in surprise for a fraction of a second. Combinations of sensors and software can recognize the identity of faces; estimate age, ethnicity, and gender; analyze gaze direction and blinks; and track distinct facial points to interpret ‘micro-expressions’, eye movements, emotions, moods, stress, deceit, boredom, confusion, intentions and more: all at the speed of life.”
The technology, Zuboff says, is intended to capture behaviors that “elude the conscious mind.”
At this point, it appears that this technology is being used primarily by corporations in guiding advertising and product development.
At this point, it appears that this technology is being used primarily by corporations in guiding advertising and product development.
However, Forbes reports that Matt Celuszak, the founder of the UK firm Element Human, an emotion-detection technology company, “thinks it will be useful for emotion detection to look out for patterns of agitation in a group of protesters to predict if a riot was about to erupt.”
China has installed emotion detection technology in Xinjiang Province, according to a report in The Straits Times, quoting a Chinese official who said: “Using video footage, emotion recognition technology can rapidly identify criminal suspects by analyzing their mental state…to prevent illegal acts including terrorism and smuggling.” Xinjiang’s Muslim population of over 1 million has been placed under intense surveillance by the central government.
1.B. Electronic information
Drones can carry electronic detection equipment that enables them to monitor cell-phone conversations, locate and track the cellphone user and capture and hack wi-fi communications.
A Venture Beat report on the use of small drones for tracking mobile electronic devices notes: “Drones, of course, offer better coverage than ground-based methods, and can be used in areas inaccessible by vehicles or foot.”
Cell phone tower simulators, such as Stingray, which can be carried by drones, trick cellphones into connecting to the simulator rather than a legitimate cell phone tower. The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports:
“Cell-site simulators operate by conducting a general search of all cell phones within the device’s radius, in violation of basic constitutional protections. Law enforcement use cell-site simulators to pinpoint the location of phones with greater accuracy than phone companies. Cell-site simulators can also log IMSI numbers (unique identifying numbers) of all of the mobile devices within a given area. Some cell-site simulators may have advanced features allowing law enforcement to intercept communications or even alter the content of communications.”
The ACLU provides this map of U.S. state and local police departments known to be using Stingray technology in 2018. Stingray type devices are also used in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Turkey.
1.C. Mass Data Collection
OneZero reported in 2019 that the U.S. military has created a
“vast database, packed with millions of images of faces, irises, fingerprints and DNA data – a biometric dragnet of anyone who has come in contact with the U.S. military abroad. The 7.4 million identities in the database range from suspected terrorists in active military zones to allied soldiers training with U.S. forces.”
This database is linked to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation’s database, the report says, meaning that the U.S. military can compare its data with biometric data of U.S. citizens and “cataloged” non-citizens. This will, the report says, “ultimately amount to a global surveillance system.”
It is very likely that this database, known as Automated Biometric Information System (ABIS), will be linked with a Pentagon AI-driven data collecting, sorting, targeting and weapons selecting global “brain” that has been officially dubbed Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI). Microsoft has won a $10 billion contract to build the brain, which the Pentagon says will speed up its “lethality.” (Amazon Web Services is contesting the award, but it appears it will not succeed in capturing it.)
SECTION 2.
Weaponized Drones – Unprecedented power to kill and traumatize with minimal or no consequence to the perpetrator.
2.A. Assassination and Pre-emptive killing
The nature of weaponized drones themselves, based on their surveillance capability, their ability to stay in the air over a target zone for hours on end, and their ability to kill without risking the life of a human assassin, makes them an instrument of assassination of hitherto unknown power.
Drones are remarkable tools of assassination because, pilotless and with drones relieving each other on station, they can follow individuals and groups for days, waiting for the “right” moment to kill.
At this point in the evolution of drone assassination, it appears that most of these killings are accomplished by relative large drones, like the U.S. MQ-9 Reaper, using powerful munitions like the Reaper’s Hellfire missile, designed for destroying buildings and vehicles. These, of course, usually kill and maim many more than the one or two individuals who might be targeted.
The photo on the left, published in the Wall Street Journal, shows on the left a car struck by a U.S. drone in Yemen in 2012, and the car in which alleged al Qaeda leader Abu Khayr al-Masri was killed by a U.S. drone in Syria in 2017. Photo credit: Khaled Abdullah/Reuters and New Jersey (U.S.) Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.
However, drone weapons are being developed that assassinate more selectively. For example, the U.S. has used a so-called “Ninja Bomb”, about the same size as a five-foot long Hellfire missile, but rather than exploding, the Jerusalem Post reports, “it deploys six blades moments before striking the target (editor’s note: a person), virtually shredding through everything in its path.”
Citing a report in the Wall Street Journal, the Post: said “To the target person, it is as if a speeding anvil fell from the sky.” The Journal said the weapon has been used by the U.S. since 2011 in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Yemen. And, the Post said: “Israel may take a look” at the “Ninja Bomb”.
Drone assassinations as carried out by the United States, using “kill lists” of named suspects, to be hunted and killed based on secret intelligence, are extrajudicial executions that violate the right of due process of their victims.
So too are the so-called “signature” strikes that target unknown victims based on their demographics and patterns of behavior. They are rarely “taken out” in the heat of battle or while engaged in hostile actions and are more likely to be killed (with anyone in their vicinity) at a wedding, at a funeral, at work, hoeing in the garden, driving down the highway or enjoying a meal with family and friends.
These killings are murders, despite the official insistence of the U.S. government that “the condition that an operational leader presents an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons will take place in the immediate future.”
Assassination is illegal against civilians, non-combatants, and military personnel who are not involved in combat. For example, General Quassem Soleimani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who was assassinated in January, 2020 by a drone attack after he arrived at the civilian airport in Baghdad, illustrates the distinction. As a member of Iran’s armed forces, Soleimani was not a civilian. On the other hand, he was not on a battlefield and was not engaged in any belligerent activity (He may, in fact, have been on a diplomatic mission). Therefore, he had the protection as a noncombatant under the law, and his assassination was a murder.
The U.S. government has argued that drone killing is somehow more humane because drones kill “precisely” as distinct from more generalized attacks, such as carpet bombing. There is evidence of great lack of precision in drone attacks, and that the precision argument is a bogus selling point intended to placate those concerned about killing “innocent” people in the midst of a program of killing that is itself illegal and immoral. As will be discussed below, drone killing is anything but “precise” when it comes to the trauma generated by drone attacks and presence.
The growing use by some nations of drones on the field of combat, as opposed to the extra-judicial execution by drone by the U.S., further obscures the lines defining the areas of combat and threaten to make the whole world a battlefield.
Despite the opinion in 2012 by then U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder that “the Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process” and that the due process requirement even to kill can be met when an intelligence or military official determines that an unknown person presents a threat, these executions are clearly violations of due process. Along with the “double tap” practice of a second drone attack on first responders to the victims of a first one, under U.S. and international law these killings are already crimes.
Indeed, the German Ministry of Defense said in a July, 2020 report: “The use of drones for extra-legal killing (assassination) and actions in violation of international law in general contradicts everything that the Bundeswehr (the armed forces) stands for since its founding, and is entirely out of the question.”
The German Federal Ministry of Defense report to the German Parliament, dated July 3, 2020, appears in full as Appendix A to this section.
“Protect the Troops”
The United States has attempted to shift public attention away from its drone assassination policy by saying that it uses drones to protect its troops on the ground.
The German Ministry of Defense said, in the just mentioned July, 2020 report, that it wants to weaponize the Heron TP drones that it is leasing from Israel to “increase the safety and reaction capabilities of our own forces and those of our partners in a mission…”
The report says also that weaponized drones will not only protect German troops but also make it more possible to distinguish between civilians and combatants, thereby offering greater protection to civilians.
German troops will need protection, the report says: “Especially in complex situations and/or in urban areas, such as are already the reality of deployment for our soldiers today” in Afghanistan and Mali.
The words “complex situations” describe situations in which it may be extremely difficult for drone operators to discern whether individuals and groups are simply near an armed conflict or whether they are joining in.
Over the last 20 years of drone warfare, as documented elsewhere on this website, drone attacks have consistently led to the killing of non-combatants because of misidentification or based on suspicion of threat, sometimes called preemptive killing. Far from protecting civilians/non-combatants, the vast gaze of drones has proven to mean greater jeopardy for them.
A larger point that must be considered is that aerial warfare historically leads to the deaths of far more civilians than combatants, and that one of the main reasons for aerial bombing is to kill and demoralize the civilian base of support for militaries. In this regard, drone killing is like other aerial bombing, a practice that must be banned.
We need a ban on weaponized drones to stop the executions of civilians and non-combatants (these are already illegal) and also to declare that the killing of combatants by drone is a crime.
2.B. Terrorization and traumatization of individuals and communities and destruction of civil society
Perpetrators of drone killing make much of the so-called “precision” of drone attacks, which is historically insupportable, but is intended to portray the perpetrators as caring human beings, killing as few people as possible and to protect themselves against the charge that they are violating international law by not protecting civilians to the maximum degree possible.
But the perpetrators say nothing about the extensive, credible evidence of the widespread trauma generated by drone attacks, whether against person or a group, trauma that spreads uncontrollably and unpredictably, like poison gas, permanently harming individuals, families and communities to varying degrees.
For example, a major portion of “Living Under Drones”, based on interviews of people who had been attacked by drones, is devoted to documenting the ways in which the attacks had traumatized people and devastated normal life.
“Community members, mental health professionals, and journalists interviewed for this report described how the constant presence of U.S. drones overhead leads to substantial levels of fear and stress in the civilian communities below. One man described the reaction to the sound of the drones as ‘a wave of terror’ coming over the community. ‘Children, grown-up people, women, they are terrified…They scream in terror’”.
The report continues:
“In addition to feeling fear, those who live under drones – and particularly interviewees who survived or witnessed strikes – described common symptoms of anticipatory anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Interviewees described emotional breakdowns, running indoors or hiding when drones appear above, fainting, nightmares and other intrusive thoughts, hyper startled reactions to loud noises, outbursts of anger and irritability, and loss of appetite and other physical symptoms. Interviewees also reported suffering from insomnia and other sleep disturbances…”
Drone attacks and drone presence in the sky, the report finds, undermine education, business, social life and cultural and religious practices, including funerals.
DRONE ATTACKS HELP SUSTAIN POLIO IN AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN
“The border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan is one of the last places on earth where polio continues to infect children, paralyzing their limbs and sometimes killing them,” note Svea Closser and Noah Coburn in “War and Health”, published in 2019 by NYU Press, and “The U.S. military’s strategy of relying on drone strikes, particularly on the Pakistan side of the border, has not just led to civilian casualties, but has dragged the program aiming to end polio into the current conflict.”
U.S. drone attacks surged on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border during the Obama Administration, according to New America, reaching a peak in 2010 and then tapering down until Obama left office, rising slightly when Donald Trump became president; within two years of which reporting of attacks stopped.
Closser and Coburn’s report finds that the U.S. drone campaign “attempts to target and eliminate individuals and small groups of fighters without adequately protecting civilians and understanding the wider implications for the surviving local population.” The attacks, they continue, mean that “Simple choices, such as whether to gather as a group for a funeral or whether to use a government hospital when ill, may suddenly have deadly consequences.”
The researchers note, however, that government-run public health facilities are “neglected”, particularly along the border, and that the intensive polio vaccination program heavily funded by international donors, “may represent the only health services a family gets.”
But, the drone attacks reinforced skepticism about the vaccination campaign and resistance to it. Moreover, the Pakistani Taliban, the researcher report, issued a fatwa in 2012 that said vaccinations would not be allowed in the area until drone attacks stopped in order to “gain concessions from the Pakistani state or international actors.”
The fatwa, the New York Times reported “is a blow to polio vaccination efforts in Pakistan, one of just three countries where the disease is still endemic, accounting for 198 new cases last year — the highest rate in the world, followed by Afghanistan and Nigeria.”
“Polio infects one child in a million,” the fatwa said, “but hundreds of Waziri women, children and elders have been killed in these strikes”, and: “Each day the list of psychological patients increases in Waziristan, which is worse than polio.”
The fatwa also said the vaccination campaign might be a way for the U.S. to spy, an idea reinforced by the C.I.A.’s creation of a phony hepatitis B vaccination campaign in order to confirm the location of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan.
Published in the New York Times.
Because the vaccination program “is an obvious priority” to international actors and the Pakistani government, Closser and Coburn report, “insurgents” increased pressure by murdering vaccination workers. Beginning in December, 2013, and over three years, at least 30 and possibly up to 80 polio workers were killed. “Because polio eradication is such a high-profile project,” killing these low-wage – mostly women – highly vulnerable workers, presented “an easy way to attract international attention.”
These “resulting civilian deaths.” Closser and Coburn observe, “are in addition to the contested counts of those people directly killed in drone strikes. They include, among many others, a young female Pakistani worker, murdered as she vaccinated children in an Afghan refugee camp on March 16, 2015, and a seven-month-old boy in North Waziristan, paralyzed by polio on May 6, 2015. The legacy of distrust and the imbalance in healthcare efforts that contributed to these civilian deaths is likely to remain long after drone strikes end.”
Researchers of the Yemeni human rights organization Mwatana, also found trauma resulting from U.S. attacks in Yemen, reporting in “Death Falling From the Sky”:
“U.S. operations take a psychological toll on survivors and on impacted communities.[18] A survivor told Mwatana that, while he had recovered physically, he continued to feel helpless and depressed a year and a half after a US strike injured him and killed his younger cousin.[19] A mother explained how children have continuing anxiety after US attacks, and can be afraid to be alone: “My six-year-old son wanted to go to the bathroom but then returned without going. When I asked him the reason, he said, ‘I don’t want you all to die without me if the drone hits.’”[20] Others drew links between family members’ trauma and the deterioration of their physical health.[21]
In addition, AlKarama, a human rights organization based in Switzerland, reported in “Traumatizing Skies” that its survey team studying the impact of U.S. drone attacks in Yemen found:
“After screening more than 100 individuals, men and women, boys and girls, we found strong common patterns of anxiety, stress, paranoia, insomnia and other trauma symptoms across gender and age. The specificity of the study is that it incorporates both individuals who have lost a direct family member to a drone attack and individuals who have not but still live under drones…We concluded that the simple fact of living under drones has psychological consequences that derive from the constant fear of being killed or having a relative being killed.”
Al Karama concludes its study by saying:
“This constant fear of being targeted so easily and so arbitrary has crippled the daily lives of the people interviewed. It is important to relate the very nature of drone technology to these aspects as well; in particular, because the fear of the constant presence of drones in the skies that can kill any moment is sustained by a technology that is politically and financially cheap for the U.S., is unregulated, has been sucked into a legal black hole and creates an equation of power where the vulnerable are nothing but dots on screen.”
In the video interview below, Faisal Bin Ali Jaber describes the devastating impact that U.S. drone attacks have had on a community in Yemen. (Interview begins at 16:15)
Drone Operators Sacrificed
Safety of stateside bases that will not be shot down with their planes, be taken prisoner or even have to miss a meal, and can often go home to their families at the end of their shift, the fact that they are not subject to the usual privations of war does not protect them from post-traumatic stress or the stress from conscience, described by the common clinical term “moral injury”.
To the contrary, killing someone who is far away and who poses no immediate danger can have a deep effect on a person, especially as they are often required to stalk their prey for days, kill them, and then watch them die, suddenly, or slowly.
It is an experience unique to drone killing. It is an experience in which the full weight of national war policy and the vast machinery of war are brought with pin-point force into the consciousness of often relatively young people who come to their drone control consoles with little or no idea of the destructive power they will unleash and the horrible consequences for their fellow human beings that they will witness.
“It went against everything that I had ever learned about honor and justice and training. It was terrifying how dismissive people were about the whole affair. We were safe in the U.S. and those over there were not. We win. But that’s not how it goes,” said veteran drone operator Brandon Bryant. Other drone whistle-blowers have similar experiences, as documented in the poignant, revealing film “National Bird”.
Recognizing the concern among the German public about the emotional health of drone crews, the German Ministry of Defense said in a July, 2020 statement, in which it argued for arming German drones, that drone crews “must be informed comprehensively on the topic of psychological stresses such as PTSD, “moral injury”, depression, etc…after operations involving the use of weapons, it is important to regularly offer conversations with peers and military psychologists, and to make a psychoanalytic therapeutic early intervention possible if necessary.”
The statement concluded: “The MoD and the Bundeswehr (armed forces) are aware of the responsibility for the drone pilots, and will take the necessary measures.”
The U.S., on the other hand, has from the beginning sought to conceal the extent of PTSD and moral injury suffered by its drone operators. However, important insight has been provided in reports of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), which continues to find that the U.S. Air Force has not been able to retain drone operators and to otherwise fill the U.S. Air Forces’ steadily growing need for drone operators. Among the challenges to drone operators, a 2020 GAO report said:
“Participants in 10 or our 14 focus groups we conducted said that some crew members – either themselves or others – did not initially understand what the job entails, such as killing. One focus group participant noted ‘the first time you know what you’re getting into emotionally is the first day of training at Holloman (Air Force Base), which is too late because you already have wings.”
“Participants in 13 or 14 focus groups we conducted,” the report continues,
“stated that witnessing or causing violence has a negative psychological impact, but two-thirds of our survey respondents (66 0f 105) said that the Air Force has not assessed their level of stress and fatigue related to their role as an RPA (drone) drone pilot or sensor operators…One focus group participant commented: ‘F-16s drop [bombs] and then go.
For RPA aircrews, we get in and we are there for 20 hours. We watch who employ weapons on, then get the battle damage assessment, including seeing body parts…on the ground.”
It appears that U.S. operators of weaponized drones, and perhaps their counterparts in other nations, are unique in their relentless exposure to atrocities generated by their own hand, and that, although their military and civilian superiors must be well-aware of the emotional damage of drone killing to their forces, they remain determined to sacrifice the drone operators, regardless.
2.C. Perpetuation of wars and increasing the possibilities of armed conflict and war
Drone technology enables governments to undertake intensive surveillance, assassinations and attacks without putting any of their forces at personal risk in direct combat.
Political and military leaders, therefore, are encouraged by weaponized drone technology to assassinate, launch wars, continue wars and to use killing to meddle in other nation’s politics, all actions that might be otherwise unacceptable to their political base were a nation’s military personnel put at risk on these missions.
Commenting on this concept, that seems to be affirmed by the U.S.’ nearly 20 years occupation of Afghanistan, Chris Cole, Director of Drone Wars UK, says as part of his endorsement statement on this website:
“In response to concerns about the public’s aversion to military casualties (often dubbed ‘war weariness’), as well as military fears about the impact of multiculturalism, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) set out in an internal 2012 study a plan for moving away from ‘boots on the ground’ operations towards the increasing use of drones, special forces and proxy armies as a means to dispel domestic opposition to military intervention overseas. After Iraq and Afghanistan, it was argued, to gain domestic support for military interventions they must be seen as being as risk-free as possible.”
Drone Intervention in Libya
Weaponized drones have been key factors in the Libyan civil war, as outside nations send in drones and other military equipment hoping to get favorable access to Libya’s oil and strategic trading location. U.N. Special Representative to Libya Ghassan Salame said in 2019 that Libya was “possibly the largest drone theater of war in the world.”
The United Arab Emirate has carried out drone attacks using Chinese-made Wing Loong II drones on the side of General Khalifa Haftar, and Turkey has been using its Bayrakar TB 22 drone to support the Government of National Accord, which is also backed by the U.N. The U.S. has used drones to attack al-Qaeda and ISIS in Libya; it is not known whether the U.S. is militarily involved in the civil war, as of early 2021. New America says that: “At least seven foreign countries and three domestic Libyan factions are reported to have conducted air and drone strikes in Libya since 2012.”
The use of drones did not end the conflict, Defense One reported in June 2020. When U.A.E. drone attacks in support of General Haftar seemed to be giving him an advantage:
“Turkey began deploying more drones, advanced air defense systems, and thousands of Syrian mercenaries, swinging the balance of power back toward the Tripoli government. Turkey has since pounded Haftar’s forces with air strikes, destroying several Russian-made Pantsir S1 air defense systems and facilitating rapid advances by anti-Haftar forces. And just last month, Russia deployed fighter jets, likely piloted by mercenaries, to central Libya in a move to deter expanded Turkish air operations and stem the tide of Haftar’s reversals.”
Military Times reported in February, 2020 that “high tech precision strike weapons are flooding the battlefield” in Libya, where the war there “is providing Pentagon planners with an opportunity to better prepare for any future conflict with China or Russia.”
DID U.S. DRONE KILLING HELP CREATE THE CONDITIONS LEADING TO YEMEN’S TRAGIC WAR?
The war in Yemen, as of early 2021, is believed to have killed more than 200,000 people; 24 million people desperately need humanitarian assistance and protection, with COVID adding to the misery. Two million children are reportedly acutely malnourished. It has become the most severe ongoing humanitarian crisis in the world.
“License to Kill: Why the American Drone War on Yemen Violates International Law”, published in 2013 by Alkarama Foundation, offers unique, detailed documentation showing how, through a program of drone assassination that began in 2002, the U.S. played a key role, if not the dominant role, in destroying a functioning political system within Yemen, arguably leading to the current war.
The goal the U.S. drone campaign seemed to be to manipulate Yemen’s national politics, and, the Alkarama report says:
“A question worth asking is whether the actual objective of this ‘invisible’ war is to force an entire country into a state of shock, aiming to break down the very structures of society, weakening an already fragile state in order to better control it. The case of Yemen seems…to provide strong evidence in this direction, including the targets chosen; the non-discrimination of strikes leading to the death of numerous civilians; the use of ‘double attacks’, where a strike is followed minutes later by another strike, obviously leading to a larger number of victims, and strikes on vehicles in urban areas.”
The report finds that U.S. drones killed not only combatants but respected community leaders. “Of the 10 cases of strikes documented by Alkarama,” the report says, “at least four of those targeted were deeply rooted in local social and political life, enjoying a high status, with some of them playing an important role mediating conflicts.”
As a result of the drone attacks, the report continues:
“Local populations have less and less confidence in the state, which appears to bend to the will of the United States. In a society dominated by tribal structures where the relationship with the state is defined as a contract between central authorities and the various tribes and regions – giving each obligations as well as privileges – the destruction of the structure seriously threatens societal peace.”
Alkarama repeatedly makes the point that drone attacks consistently resulted in high casualties among innocent civilians.
“One must ask,” the report says, “ if the targeting of civilians is not inherent in the war the Americans are waging in Yemen…They appear to be pressuring the population to turn against the combatants by creating a permanent atmosphere of terror with drones, without being able to fight back.”
“Civilians bear the brunt of human and technical error which politicians and the American military are willing to accept in order to continue the drone program,” Alkarama says. “Yemen, following on the heels of Pakistan, has become the laboratory for new methods of warfare, which represent a technological, political and legal revolution in combat methodology.”
“Unarmed and Dangerous”, a report by the Center for the Study of the Drone, makes an observation that applies to weaponized drones as well as surveillance drones, that these drones can enable attacks “that may have been otherwise too dangerous, too strategically or politically risky, or even physically impossible by other means.”
When the U.S. began drone attacks in Yemen 2002, we must ask whether the U.S. people would have been willing to send enough soldiers to Yemen to kill the untold numbers of people that it killed with weaponized drones?
“Unarmed” observes that unarmed drones, and, again, we would add armed drones as well, “may raise ethical, tactical, strategic and legal questions that have largely gone unaddressed.”
2.D. Acceleration in the development of robotized warfare.
he current use of drone surveillance and weaponized drones is hastening the evolution of weapons systems that will be more and more controlled by artificial intelligence and will more and more approach being autonomous.
Daniela Kolbe, a German parliamentarian, a physicist and Chairwoman of the German Parliament’s Study Commission on Artificial Intelligence, who has opposed the arming of drones that Germany leases from Israel, wrote in an email:
“I fear that weaponizing drones is only a first step in an escalating weapons race…I am mainly concerned about the internal logic of this arms buildup. In the understandable attempt to shield every soldier from harm, we would increasingly attempt to use ever more automated systems – including drones – for a rising number of different situations. In the end, this would leave us with fully automated weapons systems. That’s precisely the situation even the cautious drone supporters of my parliamentary group want to avoid.”
Civilian and military leaders will argue that weapons increasingly guided by artificial intelligence (AI) will ultimately continue to remain under human control, as suggested in a 2020 U.S. Department of Defense policy statement. Nevertheless, more and more of the decision-making about target selection, choice of weapons and attack is being driven by data gathered and sorted by AI systems.
Lieutenant General Jack Shanahan, Director of the Joint AI Center (JAIC), said in 2019:
“What I don’t want to see is a future where our potential adversaries have a fully A.I.- enabled force and we do not…I don’t have the time luxury of hours or days to make decisions. It may be seconds and microseconds where A.I. can be used.”
In effect, the general is saying that grave decisions, such as the use of nuclear bombs, will be more and more based on a series of mini-decisions being made by AI technology. This can lead, if we are not there already, to a nightmare scenario in which largely self-directed weapons are launched based on largely AI conclusions, with human involvement amounting to agreeing or not agreeing to an AI plan.
And, there is also the problem of AI controlled weapons “learning” on their own to do something other than what is intended.
Indeed, the aforementioned U.S. Defense Department AI policy document warns that AI guided weapons must be equipped with a “kill switch”, which might, or might not, work:
“The department will design and engineer A.I. capabilities to fulfill their intended functions while possessing the ability to detect and avoid unintended consequences, and the ability to disengage or deactivate deployed systems that demonstrate unintended behavior.”
SECTION 3.
Human Rights and International Law
The vigilantism of drone killing has been surging while the U.N. sheriff seems to think that there are no laws adequate to stop it. However, existing international laws governing the conduct of war and internationally recognized standards of human rights are sufficient to prevent the scourge of drone criminality if they are interpreted from the perspective of those living under drones.
We will show that stopping this scourge is not a question of simply controlling conduct. We must also recognize fundamental characteristics of weaponized drones and military and police drone surveillance that mean their use must be banned altogether if we are to adequately protect life and other rights guaranteed to us all by the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Law of War Principles
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) Law of War Manual sets out five principles that must guide the conduct of war, including targeting and selection of weapons, based on international law. These principles are universally recognized, although there are varying interpretations with respect to their application.
The manual discusses the principles, in italics, and their inter-relationship as follows:
“Military necessity justifies certain actions necessary to defeat the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible. Conversely humanity forbids actions unnecessary to achieve that object. Proportionality requires that even when actions may be justified by military necessity, such actions (may) not be unreasonable or excessive. Distinction underpins the parties’ responsibility to comport their behavior with military necessity, humanity, and proportionality by requiring parties to a conflict to apply certain legal categories, principally the distinction between the armed forces and the civilian population. Lastly, honor supports the entire system and gives parties confidence in it.”
While these principles are applied to conduct in the use of weapons, the principles have been also used to judge whether certain weapons, by their very nature, result in the violation of one or more of the five principles.
For example, an international treaty was established in 2008 to ban the use of cluster bombs. This was based on the fact that their very use, under any circumstance, violates the principle of distinction, which means, the treaty says,
“the parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants…and that the civilian population and individual civilians enjoy the general protection against dangers arising from military operations.”
(Note: The cluster bomb treaty has been adopted by 110 nations; Brazil, China, India, Israel, Russia and the U.S. are among nations not signing. The treaty banning the use of landmines has been adopted by 164 nations; but China, Russia and the U.S. are among those nations unwilling to sign.)
We will document below that military and police drone surveillance equipment and weaponized drones must be banned because their use violates the legal principles of war of humanity, distinction, proportionality and honor, as outlined in the DOD manual.
We will start with military and police drone surveillance because this is the technology on which drone war is based.
3.A. Military and Police Drone Surveillance
3.A.1 – Drone surveillance is a weapon. Military and police drone surveillance is in and of itself a weapon, based on technology that has been developed to enable invasion and occupation. Its use may accurately be viewed as an attack against an individual, group or population.
More specifically, drone surveillance technology, enabling a government to relentlessly watch individuals, groups and populations, is a weapon of generalized intimidation and threat. The act of 24/7 watching can lead to such harms as: fear, trauma, submission, self-censorship, loss of self-esteem, a sense of futility, constraint in self-expression, and a fear of public protest, the latter an activity fundamental to the proper functioning of government and human society.
In releasing a United Nations report that discussed the impact of surveillance technology on the rights of protesters, U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights Michelle Bachelet said:
“New technologies can be used to mobilize and organize peaceful protests, form networks and coalitions…thus driving social change. But, as we have seen, they can be and are being used to restrict and infringe on protesters’ rights, to surveil and track them, and invade their privacy.”
As the 1st. Army Brigade report on the use of a surveillance blimp over Kabul, Afghanistan, noted at the beginning of this section, said:
“Insurgents and Local nationals alike believe the blimp can see everything and will act differently when it is up.”
The military and police use of drone surveillance entails, in keeping with its origins, viewing all within its gaze as suspects and potential targets for arrest, detention or attack. Psychological and emotional harm and the dignity of those under surveillance are not considerations.
The military and police use of drone surveillance equipment violates a number of articles of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, notably Article 12, protection against “arbitrary interference” with privacy; Article 18, protection of thought, conscience and religion; Article 19, protection of freedom of expression, “through any media, regardless of frontiers”; and Article 20, protection of “the right of peaceful assembly and association.”
Recognizing military drone surveillance as a weapon means also that its use, rather than protecting civilians, violates the principle of distinction, the Law of Armed Conflict that requires that militaries distinguish between civilians and combatants before employing weapons. Using a drone to stalk even just one individual violates the rule of distinction because this process necessarily will mean that other individuals and groups will fall under surveillance, making them potential targets, a particular concern in situations in which civilians are intermingling with combatants, who may also be wearing civilian clothing.
Military and police drone surveillance also violates the standards outlined in the Department of Defence Law of War Manual, which says
“Humanity animates certain law of war rules, including:
-
- Protections for the civilian population and civilian objects.
- Prohibitions on weapons that are calculated to cause superfluous injury.
- Prohibitions on weapons that are inherently indiscriminate.
3.A.2 – Mass data collection and artificial intelligence must not be used for military and police targeting.
The use of mass data collection by drones, and processing by artificial intelligence, for the targeting of individuals and groups, which has been fundamental to the accelerating development of weaponized drones and military and police drone surveillance, must be banned.
First, as noted above, there is evidence of serious error in visual identification in drone scanning as well as inaccuracies in biometric data. Furthermore, and critically, AI processing technologies, such as facial recognition software, have proven to be biased against people of color, as noted above, making use of this technology, in and of itself, life-threatening and subject to banning under international law, including those laws intended to protect civilian populations, mentioned above.
The whistleblower who in 2015 released detailed official U.S. drone war documents, told The Intercept that, with certain electronically gathered data, such as cell phone traffic:
“There’s countless instances where I’ve come across intelligence that was faulty…It’s stunning the number of instances when selectors (electronic signals) are mis-attributed to certain people. And it isn’t until several months or years later that you all of a sudden realize that the entire time you thought you were going after this really hot target, you wind up realizing it was his mother’s phone the whole time.”
And the growing reliance on data, as compared to information gathered more personally, means that people are reduced to data and more easily killed without conscience.
Further, the mass processing of drone-gathered data, its cross-processing with other databases and the application of artificial intelligence would appear to increase the likelihood of error.
Data points achieved through video and hyperspectral scanning, and conclusions reached through artificial intelligence, are static conclusions that may result in completely inaccurate, fatal conclusions about human intention and behavior. First and foremost, they cannot “know” the instant-by-instant direction and flow of human inspiration for good, on which we all depend.
These technologies are sold as being able to plumb the human mind and spirit and come to conclusions about targeting and killing, and from great distance. The gathering of this data presupposes achieving an understanding of the human mind and spirit that has yet to be captured. The mere gathering of this kind of data alone is an affront to humanity.
We must ask whether the policy of mass surveillance typified by the U.S. Army blimp in Afghanistan, and enabled by drones, would be tolerated inside the borders of the largely white nations that are the current perpetrators of mass drone surveillance?
The use of data gathered by drones violates several articles of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, notably: Article 2, protecting rights regardless of “race, color, sex, language, religion” and other distinctions; and Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.
With respect to the Law of War, the use of drone-gathered data violates the principles of humanity and distinction, the responsibility to take care to absolutely distinguish between non-combatants and combatants.
“Today, the Data Machine doesn’t care where it is fighting. It doesn’t matter whether targets are hiding in Hindu Kush caves or in villages of the Fertile Crescent. Nor does Predator care, or Reaper, or Global Hawk, or any other of our other aptly and awkwardly named all-seeing eyes. In fact, they don’t care about anything: they are machines. But the men and women behind Gilgamesh the black box and behind the entire Machine also don’t care, for every place is reduced to geographic coordinates that flash across a screen in seconds. Nations, armies, and even people are reduced to links and networks.” William Arkin – “Unmanned: Drones, Data, and the Illusion of Perfect Warfare”
3.B. – Weaponized Drones
Aerial weaponized drones have two unique characteristics essential to their popularity among governmental and non-state perpetrators of drone attacks, characteristics that also mean that aerial weaponized drones must be banned.
First, weaponized drones can stalk an individual, group or populations for days on end from the air and then kill, an eye in the sky that can kill from the sky, anywhere, anytime.
Second, they are operated remotely, enabling perpetrators to stalk and kill without any physical risk to themselves, except for the probable emotional and psychological damage suffered by those assigned to actually “pull the trigger”.
Trauma and harm to life
As has been well documented in this report, civilians living in areas in which there are or have been drone attacks experience trauma, sometimes severe and disabling trauma, as well as disruption to normal economic, educational, cultural, religious and social life. More specifically, in addition to trauma, one drone attack alone can bring the loss of the love and care of family members, loss of community leaders, loss of income from those killed, loss of educational opportunity, having to move to live in other areas for work or from fear, all life-changing, possibly permanent harms to civilians.
These devastating consequences, which have affected tens of thousands in nations under drone attack, are based simply on the use of weaponized drones. Even if a drone attack is directed against a strictly military target, the fact of a drone attack generates fear and disruption of life to all in the area who know about it. Nevertheless, as suggested by the German Ministry of Defense document cited above, weaponized drones will be used largely in situations in which civilians, non-combatants and combatants are intermingled.
Therefore, the mere use of weaponized drones violates the Laws of War addressing humanity and distinction intended, as noted above, to protect against the use of weapons that cause “superfluous injury” and “are inherently indiscriminate.”
Initiating and prolonging war.
We have offered evidence above that the use of weaponized drones have likely been key factors in starting wars, enabling military intervention that would not have otherwise taken place, and creating political and military conditions that have inflamed and prolonged civil wars, which in the case of Yemen has become a regional war with ghastly impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
The very nature of the weaponized drone that enables remote killing has prompted the perpetrators of drone attacks to take military action that would have been impossible for them politically were they to send military people to be physically present to undertake the attacks for which they used drones.
This raises the issue of honor, a principle described in the DOD manual: “Honor, requires a certain amount of fairness in offense and defense”. This is a pivotal issue in relation to the use of weaponized drones.
The basic premise of war has been, until now, that opposing forces commit persons to a battle zone understanding that the winner will be the side that can inflict the most death and suffering within the battle zone, sufficient but not in excess of what is necessary to cause one side to lay down its arms first. The laws of war are also intended to confine the war zones and limit harm to civilians.
However, what of more automated war when one side has to commit a great deal fewer humans, or no humans, to the sufferings of battle, particularly if the foe is relatively weak technologically, as is the Taliban in comparison to the United States in Afghanistan?
In such a case, the force equipped with weaponized drones and other high-tech weapons can continually grind down on its opponent for generations, committing relatively few troops.
In “A Theory of the Drone”, Gregoire Chamayou observes that:
“The right to kill with impunity in war…seems to be based upon the tacit structural premise: if one has the right to kill without crime, it is because that right is granted mutually.”
“But,” he continues, “what happens to that right when there is no longer any effective possibility of reciprocity?”
At this point, he says, “the ethic of combat shifts and becomes an ethic of putting to death…an ethic of butchers or executioners, but not for combatants”.
The tremendous imbalance in deadly force and suffering that characterizes most of current drone war is typified in this excerpt from “Wired for War”, describing the scene inside a drone operations center during the Iraq War in which Americans watched a battle in Iraq seen through the eye of a drone:
“The operator of the drone flying over the villa was at a base in Qatar. He was amazed by the footage that he was watching. News of the ongoing battle spread through the command center and soon over forty off-duty soldiers had crowded into the small control room. Many brought in snacks. They squirmed to get the best view of the battle playing out on the flat-panel screen. Cheers would erupt every time there was a particularly big explosion. As one of the soldiers later described his experience during the battle, ‘It was like a Super Bowl party in there.’” P. W. Singer, author of “Wired for War”
then offers this observation:
“General Robert E. Lee once wrote, ‘It is good that we find war so horrible, or else we would become fond of it.’ The new technologies of war are changing the experience of war itself.”
The imbalance in the physical commitment of humans to combat is most dramatically exemplified by the situation at the nearly 20 drone attack control bases in the U.S. where drone war operators return to home and their families after their “work” shifts, going from arm chairs at the control panels to arm chairs in their living rooms.
This imbalance in the physical commitment of humans to combat is, of course, what has made drone assassination commonplace.
In addition, the imbalance is driving the development of the next wave of weaponized drones, faster, carrying larger missile and bomb loads and more and more dependent on AI for guidance and targeting.
In future wars in which both sides are equipped with highly-developed, semi-robotic or nearly fully robotic weapons, the scene is set for machines destroying machines until the human, non-combatant population of one side is increasingly exposed to the killing machines of the other side. No matter what, wars end only when humans die and suffer immensely.
The process we are witnessing therefore raises not only the law of war principle of honor but also proportionality.
The DOD Law of War Manual says that the principle of proportionality
“creates obligations to refrain from attacks in which the expected harm incidental to such attacks would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage and to take feasible precautions in planning and conducting attacks to reduce the risk of harm to civilians and other persons and objects protected from being made the object of attack.”
If this principle alone were applied by the U.N., weaponized drones would be banned based not only on the havoc and human suffering they are causing, but the prospect of much more to come.
In addition, the use of weaponized drones violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly: Article 1, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood;” Article 2, “requiring equal treatment, regardless of distinctions such as race, color, sex, language or political or other opinion;” Article 3: “the right to life, liberty and security of person” Article 5, “the right to be free of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Articles 7 – 11, dealing with the right to due process under law; Article 12, “the right to privacy;” and Article 20, the freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Wars are not simply unfortunate side shows in the global drama of human relations. Tragically, they continue to be central to creating our personal and societal limitations, our choices in life and changes in our life circumstances.
Wars and the preparation for war determine our destinies, for those under attack and for the attacker, physical and spiritual destinies real, active and profound, regardless of whether this reality is embraced or denied.
Just as the certainty of death impels and inspires our lives, our choice of whether to use death-dealing-weapons, and which weapons we use, determines our personal futures, the future of our societies and the future of humanity itself.
APPENDIX A