Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Mark Hanis encouraged me to post a fleshed-out response to his op-ed after I asked him if he wanted me to respond to an op-ed he and a colleague, Andrew Stobo Sniderman, wrote on “drones for human rights.” I asked him if he wanted me to write a response after he found a message I sent out on Twitter that condemned the idea of “humanitarian drones.”

The following is my response. I think this is an important discussion to open up here and so, if Hanis and/or his colleague wish to post a response here at The Dissenter, I will gladly publish it to the blog. Also, if a formal response is posted by either of them, I will link to it at the bottom of this post.

*

Humanitarians are taking an interest in how unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones could be used to protect human rights in countries all over the world. In particular, those who believe in preventing massacres or genocide are suggesting surveillance drones be considered as a tool that organizations could deploy to save lives.

Andrew Stobo Sniderman and Mark Hanis are two humanitarians advocating for the use of drones to protect citizens from human rights abuses. Sniderman and Hanis, of the Genocide Intervention Network (GI-NET) based in Washington, DC, argue in a recent New York Times op-ed, “It’s time we used the revolution in military affairs to serve human rights advocacy.”

Sniderman and Hanis find drones could offer the ability to “count demonstrators, gun barrels and pools of blood.” When people are massacred, as they have been in Syria, “the evidence could be broadcast for a global audience, including diplomats at the United Nations and prosecutors at the International Criminal Court.” They add, “For hundreds of thousands of dollars — no longer many millions — a surveillance drone could be flying over protests and clashes in Syria.”

Additionally, the two humanitarians argue for drone use because an environmental group, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS), currently uses them to “monitor illegal Japanese whaling in the waters of the Southern Hemisphere.”

Sniderman and Hanis have good intentions, but, if drones were routinely and frequently employed by human rights organizations to monitor human rights abuses in countries where such abuses are rampant, would human rights organizations be legitimizing a technology that numerous human rights and civil liberties groups have a recent history of condemning? Would the use of drone technology by human rights organizations provide a cover for governments to use drones for surveillance or even killing “terrorists”? Would this only exacerbate conflicts between countries?

There currently exists little to no legal framework for the use of drones in war or for surveillance. There are virtually no standards for privacy, which would put limits on the use of drones. If human rights organizations were using them, would that grant permission for their use by state powers all over the world? Would it alleviate the responsibility leaders have to develop a framework of law that can be used to prosecute violations caused by drones?

On January 30, the NYT’ Eric Schmitt covered how Iraqis were outraged that the US State Department was using surveillance drones. It noted that Iraqis might not differentiate between drones that are used for surveillance and drones that fire missiles.

Hisham Mohammed Salah, 37, an Internet cafe owner in Mosul, said he did not differentiate between surveillance drones and the ones that fire missiles. “We hear from time to time that drone aircraft have killed half a village in Pakistan and Afghanistan under the pretext of pursuing terrorists,” Mr. Salah said. “Our fear is that will happen in Iraq under a different pretext.”

If drones are flown under the pretext of protecting human rights, what would stop a country from justifying the use of drones by saying they are doing it to protect human rights? Couldn’t surveillance drones be a precursor to flying weaponized drones, which a savvy government could argue was being done to protect human rights?

Both Sniderman and Hanis acknowledge risks: “The Syrian government would undoubtedly seize the opportunity to blame a foreign conspiracy for its troubles. Local operators of the drones could be at risk, though a higher-end drone could be controlled from a remote location or a neighboring country.”

Who would be the “local operators”? Would nonprofits expend funds to train people to learn to operate drones? Or, would nonprofits go to work with a private contractor or government agency to send drones in to save civilian lives?

From where would these drones be launched? Would humanitarian organizations be launching drones to go monitor countries from any of the eight hundred to a thousand US military bases in the world? Would they be using aircraft carriers? Would they need this kind of military support to pull off an effective human rights monitoring operation? Or, would an organization like GI-NET be able to independently send a team without cooperation with the United States or European Union?

Suppose widespread human rights abuses were occurring in Iraq and people were being massacred like they are being massacred in Syria. GI-NET could fly a drone in the sky over Iraq but drones would probably never be flown with permission from the Iraqi government. The drones would be in the air because some border country granted GI-NET the right to use their air space to launch drones. If the drones were unwelcome, might they be perceived as an act of war that groups within Iraq might want to respond to by attacking the country enabling GI-NET to launch monitoring operations?

At the end of the op-ed, Sniderman and Hanis note that concerns of partnering humanitarian organizations had led them to settle on giving protesters phones, satellite modems and safe houses, which “for nearly a year now,” they have been using. They note, “the value that a drone could add might not be worth the investment and risks,” that would be incurred by launching a drone in Syria.

Thus, it is worth asking these human rights advocates that support going down a path where nonprofits would be using drones to advance their agenda: Why not stick with supplying countries’ citizens with technology? The world is much more likely to stop a genocide if the atrocities are being witnessed in real time through the eyes of people who are most endangered.

Think about what happened over the weekend. Thousands of people around the world went to protest in front of embassies calling for an end to the massacring of innocent people. Those protests continue, as Russia and China vetoed a UN resolution against Syria. Assad’s days as the tyrant, who governs Syria, are definitely numbered as images, video and messages are circulated via Twitter and other social media on the Internet.

Until it can be proven that human rights organizations would not be providing cover to governments to use drone technology in ways that were nefarious and until it can be easily argued that phones, satellite modems, etc, along with safe houses, are inadequate when compared to drone technology, drones for human rights is a cause that is worrisome to support.

*Above is live stream of Occupy Pittsburgh

[UPDATE - 8:39 pm EST] They have a fort.

[UPDATE - 6:22 pm EST] Occupiers are still on the Green. Police have not removed them yet.

[UPDATE - 3:30 pm EST] A judge orders sheriff to remove Occupy Pittsburgh from Mellon Green:

An Allegheny County judge today ordered the sheriff to remove Occupy Pittsburgh protesters and their tents from Bank of New York Mellon`s Downtown park.

Common Pleas Judge Christine Ward last week gave protesters three days to leave Mellon Green after agreeing with the bank that no constitutional right or law allowed the group to stay because it was the bank`s property. That deadline expired about noon today, but more than a dozen tents remained as of this afternoon. About 60 people rallied in the park at noon.

It is unknown when the sheriff will be carrying out this order but any time this afternoon or evening police could come in and sweep occupiers off the Green.

[UPDATE - 1:30 pm EST] A sheriff tells occupiers they are leaving because BNY Mellon hasn’t given them any orders yet. That may be true but barricades are going up in front of the entrance to Mellon’s headquarters. They must be preparing for when occupiers are cleared out. Surely, occupiers will want to demonstrate in the aftermath of a raid.

[UPDATE - 1:17 pm EST] I don’t see anymore occupiers inside fountain area that is fenced off. But, live streamer is going to cover, I think, a sheriff that is entering the Green. The K-9 unit is ready for deployment. Muzzles are going on the dogs.

[UPDATE - 1:08 pm EST] Cops beginning to talk to occupiers. Think they are going to move on people who are in the fountain area that was fenced off soon.

[UPDATE - 12:55 pm EST] Occupiers have entered an area that has been blocked off with fences.

[UPDATE - 12:39 pm EST] Picket around the site is about to begin.

[UPDATE - 12:30 pm EST] John, wheelchair-bound, celebrates how the national discussion has changed because of Occupy. The discussion has changed. No longer do we talk about debt. We talk about jobs and income inequality. The discussion, he says, will continue after this. He is a Democratic committee member. He says he knows a lot of people are not satisfied with Democrats. He says good. We will do better.

[UPDATE - 12:29 pm EST] Speaker talking about the need for single-payer not-for-profit healthcare in America. He describes living in Europe and Japan for some time and how affordable healthcare was there.

[UPDATE - 12:25 pm EST] Speakers are continuing to say why they occupy and why this is important. The audio on the official Occupy Pittsburgh is not so good. I am going to keep Korgasm’s stream at top. But, understand, she may not be covering this speak out so if you want to hear speeches you will need this link.

[UPDATE - 12:19 pm EST] Member of United Electrical Workers union speaks and shows solidarity. Occupy Pittsburgh has been very supportive of Occupy Pittsburgh.

[UPDATE - 12:16 pm EST] No media have questions. No reporters are there to ask occupiers any questions.

[UPDATE - 12:15 pm EST] Older gentlemen gets up and ask if Pittsburgh is going to behave and contribute to the proclamation that Pittsburgh is a human rights rally? The words matter and count and speak to every citizen in Pittsburgh. I personally want to thank the City Council for promoting such a declaration.

[UPDATE - 12:12 pm EST] Speaker gets up and says they will show the judge and corporate America no matter what they say, no matter what they do — they are not going anywhere. This is our country. This is our future. This is our lives. And we will fight for it.

He goes on to add, we will not give up. We will not stop. Our struggle has just begun. Until the fight is won, we will stand by side as I believe in you and believe in me, as we believe in each other, we will stand by side fighting corporate greed and corruption in politics. The battle will not stop. Until we get money out of our politics, we will stand shoulder to shoulder side by side no matter what the weather, no matter what the fight.

Chants of “we are the 99%” begin.

[UPDATE - 12:09 pm EST] Guillermo of United Steelworkers talks about the advance of austerity measures in America. He talks about the union supporting Occupy sites all over.

He recalls a sign that said, “It is so not over.” He says movement will grow as long as 1% is determined to deny the working people of this country what they are due. They will win because there is no power like the power of the people. They all launch into a chant.

USW has members that are locked out by their employers instead of negotiating with them. He talks about the transit cuts being an attack on public sector. He says the fights are only beginning and pledges to fight with Occupy and calls on occupiers to stand shoulder to shoulder with union members in their struggles.

[UPDATE - 12:08 pm EST] Helen of Occupy Pittsburgh and a veteran says she swore and support the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. She swears to continue to uphold the oath. It is here she finally got to serve and fulfill her oath, she says. She called on people to support and defend the Constitution, Bill of Rights and human rights. It is up to all of us to stand as the 99%. “We will lose our liberty if we do not stand up for all of our rights.” She says she gave up her home to occupy Pittsburgh.

[UPDATE - 12:03 pm EST] Jeff speaks for himself and describes Occupy Pittsburgh’s contribution. The group made a public forum, developed strong community of empowered individuals, worked to bring important issues into the public dialogue

We will continue to organize economic and social injustice. We occupy Pittsburgh and we occupy everywhere because you cannot evict an idea whose time has come. We will occupy for health care and occupy for public transportation. [They plan to have a presence at an upcoming public transit hearing.]

Doug Shields, who has served in the Pittsburgh City Council, said we’re here to exercise our First Amendment rights to address the wrongs that have committed

New ways to suppress freedom of speech. Last week, he notes, Josh Fox was arrested for coming to witness a congressional hearing. He highlights free speech zones and says occupy is here to fight corporate influence of government and the taking away of our rights.

We are here to give voice to our concerns as a people, he continues. It is okay when JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers and others commit crimes and that is why we are here. We have had it up to here with corporate excesses and corporations robbing us of our right to address these wrongs. We are going to keep fighting and protesting.

[UPDATE - 12:01 pm EST] Press conference: George Edwards, valued member of the United Steelworkers Union,  – I am part of the 99% today. 94 years-old. I want to give full support.  You are 99% too so all of 99% have to work together to make a change in the country.

Sammy Lee, from Occupy Pittsburgh, says she came here to educate herself on the first night and she has camped out basically every day since October 16. “Losing it is not the end” — It is only the beginning of something new. Losing the camp doesn’t mean giving up or that people are going away.

[UPDATE - 11:55 am EST] Press conference is beginning now. As it gets underway, there is visual confirmation of police vehicles: two vans, two SUVs and a K-9 unit.

Original Post

As reported here at Firedoglake three days ago, Occupy Pittsburgh, which has been occupying land owned by a bank known as BNY Mellon for over a hundred days, is to be evicted by the bank after noon today. The eviction comes after a judge issued a decision siding with the “bank’s claim of immediate and irreparable harm” if the occupation remained on the property.

RFShunt reported on the 23-page ruling issued by Judge Christine A. Ward. It gave the occupation “three days to remove tents and personal belongings, cease camping, and comply with all BNY Mellon notices.” The ruling, while “sometimes sympathetic” to the message of Occupy Pittsburgh, found the bank “met nearly all the criteria for a temporary injunction which allows for eviction before a full hearing of the case.”

The ruling looked at whether the park was public or private. Similar to Brookfield Properties-owned Zuccotti Park, where the Occupy movement was launched last September, the city of Pittsburgh has zoned the area as “open urban space.” However, the judge found the area to be private.

The judge wrote in the decision:

Defendants make an interesting argument that privately owned Mellon Green may be considered to be a public forum in the months in which the Green is open to the public. However, even if Mellon Green were considered to be a public forum in the spring, summer and fall, it is not controverted that Mellon/BNY Mellon has always closed the Green in the winter, during which time it could not be argued that it is or ever has been a public forum. Therefore, at least in the winter months, Mellong Green is simply private property. There is no zoning, constitutional, statutory or common law ground that permits a group of people to take over someone else’s private property as Defendants have taken over BNY Mellon’s property here, and effectively prevent the owner from closing its property.

Essentially, the judge might have had a harder time coming down Occupy Pittsburgh if it weren’t winter.

Occupy Pittsburgh is another occupation I visited on my recent tour of occupations in January. I currently have a full report on my experience meeting with occupiers and seeing the Occupy group’s site on Mellon Green that will be published soon. In the meantime, as the occupation faces an eviction today, I will share a few thoughts.

When I talked with occupiers, more than a few referred to their site as “The Shire,” as in the village where hobbits in Lord of the Rings live. Next to them is a Tower—BNY Mellon’s headquarters. The Tower is possibly where the eye of Sauron could be found and the eye of Sauron might be the surveillance that the bank has undoubtedly been using to monitor the site since it began.

BNY Mellon's towering headquarters, which looms over Occupy Pittsburgh

An occupier described a story about when they first began occupying Mellon Green. People would feel “rain” coming down from the sky. They would walk off the Mellon Green and it would no longer be “raining.” They would return and it would be “raining” again. The occupiers realized BNY Mellon was doing a cleaning of a side of their towering headquarters and “corporate rain” was coming down on the encampment. This lasted for days.

Finally, I witnessed something I had not seen any Occupy group do yet. The Friday night I was there occupiers gathered to do a community building exercise called “Picturing the Occupation.” They all received a sheet of paper and had to answer why they occupied and what it meant to occupy. They were given a blank poster to draw out a visual representation of the occupation. The representation could be literal or figurative but it had to show what they thought about the occupation on Mellon Green. After the exercise was done, people went around and described the answers to their questions and they showed the artwork they had done. The exercise seemed like something any group could do to bring each other closer together and, perhaps, even address conflict within the group.

Occupy Pittsburgh draws pictures of their occupation

Occupy Pittsburgh is having a press conference just before noon. Noon is when the occupation has been asked to leave. The occupation will “demonstrate at the camp beforehand to show that an injunction or an eviction will not stop this movement, to stand up for the freedom of speech and of assembly, to celebrate Occupy Pittsburgh’s achievements over the last four months, and to say loud and clear: ‘You can’t evict an idea whose time has come.’”

Follow updates on Occupy Pittsburgh and the eviction here at Firedoglake. Updates will be added at the top throughout the day. And FDL will have full coverage of the press conference. As of now, fifteen to twenty tents remain on the Green.

*Above is a live stream from Freedom Plaza by occupiedair (or Nathan Grant –  in case he gets arrested today). Check back for updates as Firedoglake follows what happens to the occupation in Freedom Plaza.

[UPDATE - 5:58 PM] Not certain of the police presence around Freedom Plaza but seems like a lot of the tents passed inspection. The world didn’t see a scene unfold like what happened yesterday in McPherson Square. Part of that may have to do with the group. The Freedom Plaza occupation was “Stop the Machine” and had taken out a permit for the months it was in the Plaza last year. It also had a permit to be in the plaza now and that is why when they were asked to turn off music they were able to stop the police from telling them whether they could play music or not.

Now, there are reports on police in McPherson and reports on protesters so it must be noted that the occupation isn’t really over. The GA will regroup and a presence is likely to continue with occupiers keeping a presence.

[UPDATE - 3:48 PM] The scene in the past hour from Shane Worth.

[UPDATE - 2:17 PM] First arrest at Freedom Plaza

Kat Driessen of Washington Post says he was taken into custody for making “felony threats.” Ok…

Also, seeing reports that the live streamer for the stream above, Nathan Grant, is going to be able to keep his tent. It is in “compliance.”

That doesn’t mean tents aren’t being seized like yesterday. As the police barricade areas of the plaza and move through, multiple tents are coming down.

[UPDATE - 1:38 PM] While waiting for this to develop further, read Jefferson Morley’s post at Salon about the “battle for McPherson Square.”

Laura Potter, a retired Army nurse on disability, watched in disbelief as her green tent was trampled.

“They’re only here to protect the people in government,” she said of the police, leaning on her metal crutch. “They’re not listening to the people. They’re listening to Darrell Issa. They’re using their sticks on people when they should be using their badges to protect them.”

[UPDATE - 1:25 PM] It does all seem like a big con. And it feels like a rerun of a TV episode that gets up under your skin.

Police did begin by putting on their best face (they did that yesterday). They began to “inspect” but then complained too many were following them around. This meant the police had to stop and they could try again but would likely begin a more “formal” inspection.

Barricades are up. Those in the Plaza are waiting for many personnel to show up to go around and determine what tents are in “compliance.”

(Note: Yesterday, 170 tents were found to not be in “compliance.” Why? It rained. Any holding water were to be deemed “biohazards.”)

[UPDATE - 12:25 PM] Captain Jacobsen of Park Police expects there will be very “few problems.” He says, “Camping regulations we’ll work with you on.”

The Park Police will be working with occupiers to violate their Fourth Amendment rights. Officers are going to begin to pat down journalists and protesters who come into the Plaza.

Captain Jacobsen was just confronted by press. They wonder why McPherson wasn’t given a chance for “informal walkabout.” The police just swept in and started moving them around forcefully. Instead, here at Freedom Plaza is *not* at this point compartmentalizing the inspection/raid like they did yesterday.

[UPDATE - 11:37 AM] The Park Service is handing out bright green-colored eviction notices. They are setting up a security perimeter for its operations. The Park Police are establishing a security perimeter. They are going to have a continued police presence, just like at McPherson Square.

“This is your last chance to come into compliance,” the notice reads. “Some of you have done it but others have not.” So, that is a clear indicator that we could see a repeat of yesterday, especially if people who were at McPherson yesterday show up to express solidarity.

There are plainclothes officers on the scene who refuse to inform occupiers what agency they are working for.

Original Post

National Park Service police are gathering around Freedom Plaza in DC to bring the occupation into compliance with a “no camping” rule. The Park Service denies that an eviction is going to happen. They claim all that will happen is an “inspection.”

The world watched yesterday as the Park Service conducted an “inspection” in McPherson Square, where Occupy DC was located. They first announced they would not be evicting. Then they moved through the camp. But streets surrounding Soon, Hazmat suit-wearing men appeared and were rifling through the property of occupiers inside tents, which were understood to be there symbolically but somehow were all “biohazards.”

The Park Service systematically dismantled all sections of the Occupy DC vigil that had been ongoing. They moved from corner to corner, relocating occupiers that were congregating.

So, here’s a video showing how the Park Service does “inspections” and what they might mean when they say they are coming to “inspect” the vigil today. (Of course, remember, as the National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis said in a congressional hearing, they take a “measured” and “reasoned approach” to handling protests.):