“President Obama has instructed us to be more open with the American people about these efforts,” Brennan explained.

I had just co-organized a Drone Summit over the weekend, where Pakistani lawyer Shahzad Akbar told us heart-wrenching stories about the hundreds of innocent victims of our drone attacks. We saw horrific photos of people whose bodies were blown apart by Hellfire missiles, with only a hand or a slab of flesh remaining. We saw poor children on the receiving end of our attacks—maimed for life, with no legs, no eyes, no future. And for all these innocents, there was no apology, no compensation, not even an acknowledgement of their losses. Nothing.

The U.S. government refuses to disclose who has been killed, for what reason, and with what collateral consequences. It deems the entire world a war zone, where it can operate at will, beyond the confines of international law.

So there I was at the Wilson Center, listening to Brennan describe our policies as ethical, “wise,” and in compliance with international law. He spoke as if the only people we kill with our drone strikes are militants bent on killing Americans. “It is unfortunate that to save innocent lives we are sometimes obliged to take lives – the lives of terrorists who seek to murder our fellow citizens.” The only mention of taking innocent lives referred to Al Qaeda. “Al Qaeda’s killing of innocent civilians, mostly Muslim men, women and children, has badly tarnished its image and appeal in the eyes of Muslims around the world.” This is true, but the same must be said of U.S. policies that fuel anti-American sentiments in the eyes of Muslims around the world.

So I stood up and in a calm voice, spoke out (video).

“Excuse me, Mr. Brennan, will you speak out about the innocents killed by the United States in our drone strikes? What about the hundreds of innocent people we are killing with drone strikes in the Philippines, in Yemen, in Somalia? I speak out on behalf of those innocent victims. They deserve an apology from you, Mr. Brennan. How many people are you willing to sacrifice? Why are you lying to the American people and not saying how many innocents have been killed?”

My heart was racing as a female security guard and then a burly Federal Protection Service policeman started pulling me out, but I kept talking.

“I speak out on behalf of Tariq Aziz, a 16-year-old in Pakistan who was killed simply because he wanted to document the drone strikes. I speak out on behalf of Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old born in Denver, killed in Yemen just because his father was someone we don’t like. I speak out on behalf of the Constitution and the rule of law.” My parting words as they dragged me out the door were, “I love the rule of law and I love my country. You are making us less safe by killing so many innocent people. Shame on you, John Brennan.”

I was handcuffed and taken to the basement of the building, where I was questioned about my background and motives. To their credit, it seems the Wilson Center thought it would not be good to have someone arrested for exercising their right to free speech, so I was released.

Brennan’s speech came the day after another U.S. drone strike in Pakistan, one that  killed three alleged militants. After the strike, the Pakistani government voiced its strongest and most public condemnation yet, accusing the United States of violating Pakistani sovereignty, calling the campaign “a total contravention of international law and established norms of interstate relations.” Earlier in April the Pakistani Parliament unanimously condemned drone strikes and established a new set of guidelines for rebuilding the country’s frayed relationship with the United States, which included the immediate cessation of all drone strikes in Pakistani territory.

The attacks in Pakistan, carried out by the CIA, started in 2004. Since then, there have been over 300 strikes. The areas where the strikes take place have been sealed off by the Pakistani security forces, so it has been difficult to get accurate reports about deaths and damages. John Brennan has denied that innocents have even been killed. Speaking in June 2011 about the preceding year, he said “there hasn’t been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision of the capabilities we’ve been able to develop.” Mr. Brennan later adjusted his statement somewhat, saying, “Fortunately, for more than a year, due to our discretion and precision, the U.S. government has not found credible evidence of collateral deaths resulting from U.S. counterterrorism operations outside of Afghanistan or Iraq.”

This is just not true. The UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism is the group that keeps the best count of casualties from U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. According to its figures, since 2004, U.S. has killed between about 2,500-3,000 people in Pakistan. Of those, between 479 and 811 were civilians, 174 of them children.

Shahzad Akbar, a Pakistani lawyer who has been representing drone victims and who started the group Foundation for Fundamental Rights, disputes even these figures and claims that the vast majority of those killed are ordinary civilians. “I have a problem with this word ‘militant.’ Most of the victims who are labeled militants might be Taliban sympathizers but they are not involved in any criminal or terrorist acts, and certainly not against the United States,” he claimed. He said the Americans often assumes that if someone wears a turban, has a beard and carries a weapon, he is a combatant. “That is a description of all the men in that region of Pakistan. It is part of their culture.” Shahzad believes that only those people who the Americans label “high-value targets”, which would be less than 200, should be considered militants; all others should be considered civilian victims.

While President Obama is gearing up for an election campaign and using his drone-strike killing spree to as a sign of his tough stance on national security, people from across the United States and around the world are organizing to rein in the drones.

Gathering in Washington DC on April 28-29, they came up with a new campaign to educate the American public about civilian deaths in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere as a result of the use of drones for illegal killing and to pressure members of Congress, President Obama, federal agencies, and state and local governments to restrict the use of drones for illegal killing and surveillance. The tactics include court challenges, delegations to the affected regions, direct action at U.S. bases from where the drones are operated, student campaigns to divest from companies involved in the production of killer drones and outreach to faith-based communities.

If you would like to get involved, make sure to sign up here.

On May 11, 2011, the House Armed Services Committee voted to approve the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This bill includes, among other things, an expansion of the legal basis for the so-called War on Terror. It passed the committee by a vote of 60-1. The sole dissenting vote was that of John Garamendi (D-CA).  Garamendi explained his vote:

The Armed Services Committee voted to continue the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history. Because I wholeheartedly support our soldiers and their families, I cannot in good conscience vote to extend a war without an endgame. To continue  to risk the lives of 100,000 American troops in support of the corrupt Karzai government in Afghanistan’s internal civil war is not in the long-term national interest of the United States.

CODEPINK thanks Representative Garamendi for his vote against this ominous legislation, which reminds us of Representative Barbara Lee’s dissenting vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) following 9/11. She foresaw the consequences of that dangerous legislation, and explained her vote against it:

It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the September 11 events—anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation’s long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it would put more innocent lives at risk.

Many of the things Lee predicted on September 14, 2001–endless war, loss of life, abuse of power, and so on—have come to pass. If the NDAA passes, the situation could deteriorate further, in ways that those who voted for it have not adequately considered.

The title of the “FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act” doesn’t even begin to hint at how disastrous it really is. Specifically Section 1034, “Affirmation of Armed Conflict with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Associated Forces,” an alarming proposal that could trap us in an endless war against unspecified targets:

This section would affirm that the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section would also affirm that the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority to detain certain belligerents until the termination of hostilities.

This language expands the president’s war powers outlined in the AUMF that led to the so-called War on Terror. Section 1034 of the NDAA allows the United States to wage war without end wherever the president chooses, against any country or entity in the world.

CODEPINK, along with 20 other national organizations, will be participating in a Week of Action to End the Afghanistan War starting Monday. Next week is when the full House of Representatives will discuss the military spending bill as approved by the Armed Services Committee and amendments. Watch this space for more information on how to get involved in these efforts. And don’t forget to tell your representative to support HR 780, the Responsible End to the War in Afghanistan!

When the protesters began arriving at 7:30 AM, banners and roses were added to the rent-a-fence. Messages like “Stop Drone Attacks,” and “General Atomics, Your Profits = Civilian Deaths” were placed to greet employees on their way to work.

Within an hour, there were 60+ protesters — mostly local San Diego citizens, but also activists from Nevada, Washington and cities throughout California. A picket line formed directly outside of the gate that the security guards were opening and closing for cars. Chants asking General Atomics to leave the Middle East and calling on President Obama to end the Drone strikes that have increased during his administration filled the air before everyone laid down for a die-in. After chalking the outlines to represent the civilians killed indiscriminately by drone attacks in Pakistan, we packed up and headed to a secondary GA entrance.

There was no chain-link fence the opposite side of the property, so cars came and went freely. A new picket line began, this time getting a great deal of attention from GA security and soon the police began arriving, one car after another. We carried banners, peace flags and model drone planes to make sure our presence was understood by General Atomics employees and any passers-by. Our intent was simple: ask people to think about the company that they work for and hold the management accountable for the killing machines that they manufacture. Profits are not more important than human lives. Consider where the paychecks come from, and at what cost. This is one morning that we made it difficult to get to work, but there are mornings in Pakistan and Afghanistan when people never make it to work at all, or arrive to find buildings and roads destroyed by US attacks. General Atomics has other divisions that do not build instruments of war. Several employees gave us smiles and peace signs as they passed by. It was clear that the Predator and Reaper Drones were not supported by all of GA’s employees.

By 11 AM, there were three protesters sitting in the driveway, preventing any access to the property and creating a back-up of 7 or 8 cars along the road. Security guards turned them away, one by one and began threatening arrest. They rest of us continued chanting and marching around them, bringing them water and whatever else they needed. The police attempted to negotiate with them, but they all wanted the same thing: General Atomics to agree to stop making Drones. Since the police couldn’t deliver that, we asked that they contact the CEO, James Neal Blue, so that we could have the meeting we had requested weeks ago. The police couldn’t do that either. So the sit-in continued.

We are not asking for the impossible — just to stop building the drones that kill civilians abroad and endanger US civilians domestically. Stop building the drones that fuel the war and cause suffering and hate. Concentrate on the rapid transit technology and the other peaceful General Atomics programs. Help communities by employing more people with the green jobs that will create a safe and sustainable future.

Profiting off of war, occupation and murder — and by extension, prolonging the violence — must not be tolerated. We are violating international laws by attacking countries like Pakistan, who did not attack or threaten the United States. We are violating US law since Congress did not authorize these attacks and in fact, the US government continues to avoid responsibility for them while the CIA oversees the Drone strikes.

After over an hour of preventing access to the GA headquarters and more than four hours of disrupting business as usual, CODEPINK, San Diego Peace Resource Center, and our coalition of activists packed up. We waved goodbye to the security guards and police, and promised to return.

General Atomics manufactures the Predator and Reaper Drones, the only armed UAV’s made in the US. Though touted as high-tech and life-saving precision weapons, at least 30% of the deaths caused by drone strikes are civilians, with some human rights groups estimating even higher numbers. All the while costing US taxpayers $4 million to $12 million for each plane during a time when domestic needs are desperately under-funded.

Another issue that CODEPINK takes with the use of drones – specifically in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region – is that they are known to cause more deaths than they prevent, since the terror they cause fuel anti-American sentiment and help extremists groups to recruit combatants. During interrogation of the suspect in the failed NY Times Square bomb plot, it was revealed that drone strikes motivated his attempted attack on US civilians. Intelligence officials even admit to this threat, according to a NY Times article on May 5th. “{…} the attack in December on a C.I.A. base in Afghanistan, and now possibly the failed S.U.V. attack in Manhattan, are reminders that the drones’ very success may be provoking a costly response.”

CODEPINK and San Diego’s Peace Resource Center agree that the price of the drone attacks is too high, both in taxpayer dollars and human lives.

At the 2004 Radio and Television Correspondents’ Dinner, President Bush joked about searching for WMDs under Oval Office furniture. The joke backfired when parents who had lost their children fighting in Iraq said they found the joke offensive and tasteless. Senator John Kerry said Bush displayed a “stunningly cavalier” attitude toward the war and those serving in Iraq.

So it’s odd that President Obama would make a crude joke about deaths that he is responsible for. But that’s just what he did at the May 1 White House Correspondents Dinner. “Jonas Brothers are here, they’re out there somewhere,” President Obama quipped as he looked out at the packed room. Then he furrowed his brow, pretending to send a stern message to the pop band. “Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don’t get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You’ll never see it coming.”

For people in Pakistan, where most of the drones are being used, the joke lost something in translation. According to Pakistani journalist Khawar Rizvi, few Pakistanis have ever heard of the Jonas Brothers or understood the reference to the President’s daughters. “But one thing we do know: There’s nothing funny about predator drones,” said Rizvi. “They’ve killed hundreds of civilians and caused so much suffering in Pakistan. And that’s no laughing matter.”

The point of using attack drones, which are piloted from 6,000 miles away in the Nevada desert, is to guarantee no U.S. casualties. But the increased use of unmanned aerial vehicles has led to an increase in the killing and maiming of innocents, often while they are sleeping in their beds.

You won’t get much of a chuckle by reading The New America Foundation’s 2009 report “Revenge of the Drones.” It shows that Obama, far from curtailing the drone program he inherited from President Bush, dramatically increased the number of U.S. drone strikes.

The report says that roughly 252 to 315 Pakistani civilians were killed by Predator and Reaper drone strikes between 2006 and 2009. Other reports place the figure much higher. Pakistani authorities released statistics indicating that over 700 civilians were killed by drones in 2009 alone, the year Obama took office. The running tally on the website PakistanBodyCount.Org is even more shocking: 1,226 civilians killed and 427 injured as of March 2010!

Equally shocking is the ratio of civilians to militants killed, which Middle East scholar Daniel Byman estimates at ten to one. It is a cruel joke indeed for the people of Pakistan that the U.S. military finds it acceptable to murder 10 innocent people for every Al Qaeda or Taliban operative killed.

The use of the drones has also expanded in Afghanistan. Every day, the Air Force now flies at least 20 Predator drones — twice as many as a year ago. They are mostly used for surveillance, but have also carried out more than 200 strikes over the last year. “Since the start of 2009, the Predators and their larger cousins, the Reapers, have fired at least 184 missiles and 66 laser-guided bombs at militant suspects in Afghanistan,” reported Christopher Drew of the New York Times.

We will never know the true number of civilians killed by our drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Our military “doesn’t do body counts,” as General Tommy Franks famously said when questioned about Iraqi casualties. But each bomb that misses its target leaves a trail of unacceptable human suffering—young lives snuffed out, lifetime disabilities, grieving widows, orphaned children.

Like a bad joke that backfires, these cruel “mistakes” anger the local population, stoke anti-American feelings and prompt violent acts of revenge. As Pakistani-American attorney Rafia Zakaria wrote, “Somewhere in the United States, a drone operator sits in a booth with a joystick and commandeers a pilot-less aircraft armed with deadly bombs. Much like in a video game, he aims, shoots and fires at targets he sees on a satellite map….Sometimes the target is killed and sometimes the intelligence is faulty and a sleeping family or a wedding party bears the brunt of the miscalculation. At all times, however, the Taliban capitalize on the ensuing mayhem and gain new recruits and re-energize old ones. Terror thus spreads not simply in the village where the drone attack has taken place but far and wide in the bazaars of Peshawar and the streets of Lahore and the offices of Islamabad where these recruits avenge their anger against the drone attacks.

While Pakistanis and Afghans find nothing humorous about drone jokes, American businessmen like Neal Blue and Wesley Bush, the CEOs of General Atomics and Northrop Grumman, have been laughing all the way to the bank. Their companies have made a fortune producing the killer drones. General Atomics is a private company and refuses to disclose its revenue or profits, but it has sold more than $2.4 billion worth of drones and other equipment to the U.S. military in the past decade.

With the financial crisis, Obama has called for a three-year freeze on domestic spending, leading to cuts in everything from nutrition programs to national parks. But the Defense Department is exempt from the freeze and in the case of drones, the money is pouring in. The U.S. Defense Appropriations FY2011 doubles the outlay for drones. The U.S. taxpayer will now spend a mind-boggling $2.2 billion for the procurement of Predator-class aircraft, thus guaranteeing the slaughter of innocents for many years to come.

Whoever said laughter was the best medicine was never attacked by a predator drone. President Obama, just like George Bush before him, should not be allowed to get away with telling tasteless war jokes. But more important, he should not be allowed to keep employing weapons that, as in the case of landmines and cluster bombs, disproportionately kill civilians.

Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK and Global Exchange. Nancy Mancias runs CODEPINK’s Ground the Drones campaign. For more information, contact codepink.nancy@gmail.com.

Originally posted at After Downing Street

As a visitor to our nation’s capital, I cannot tell you how disconcerting it is to step off the metro and find yourself face to face with a F-35 fighter jet. Where you would normally expect to find ads for cell phones or museum exhibitions, Washington’s subway, the second busiest in the country, instead displays full color backlit billboards for some of the most deadly – and expensive – weapons systems ever produced.

The ads for such companies as Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest weapons producer, Goodrich, KBR, AGI, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman can be found in many of the metro stations in the Washington metropolitan area. Not surprisingly, the heaviest concentration is at Pentagon City and near government offices at the Federal Center and Capitol South stations. Undoubtedly, the ads aim to influence key decision-makers, but they also serve the purpose of selling to the general public the concept that only our superior military prowess can protect us from a hostile world.

The billboards range from explicit ads for attack helicopters and combat vehicles to more subtle billboards for companies such as little-known DRS, owned by Italian weapons maker Finmeccanica and 26th among the top 100 Pentagon contractors, or for “rugged” Dell computers designed to meet Defense Department specifications for military-use.

Far from subtle is Northrop Grumman’s marketing approach in the Capitol South metro station, the closest to Congress. In an all out assault on the visual senses, the station has been literally festooned by the country’s third largest military contractor. Apparently considering the usual ad space along the tracks to be insufficient, Northrop Grumman ads can also be found on all four sides of columns installed near the turnstiles, on banners strung up along the railings upstairs and even on the floor just before the escalators. CBS Outdoor, responsible for the ad space in DC metro stations, claims that “Capitol Hill Station Domination is an impactful way to get your message in front of the Congress and decision-makers in DC.”

An estimated 17,000 Capitol South metro passengers are confronted daily with Northrop Grumman Global Hawks and X-47 Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles, which boast a 4500-pound weapons bay, E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes, Viper Strike-armed Fire Scout unmanned helicopters and E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar Systems (STARS), all designed “for an unsafe world.” According to the centrist Brookings Institute, 90% of drone casualties in “targeted” strikes in Pakistan have been innocent civilians. Yet ads for these systems, which carry price tags ranging hundreds of millions of dollars when factoring in development costs, are on full display.

Perhaps most startling of all the Capitol South billboards is the ominous scene of a bombed out apartment building above the slogan “By the time you find the threat, we’ve already taken it out of the picture.” Northrop Grumman fails to fill us in on what happened to the people living in those apartments.

Following the trend of major defense companies wishing to cozy up to powerbrokers in Congress and at the Pentagon, Northrop Grumman recently announced plans to relocate its California headquarters to the DC area. Officials from Washington, Virginia and Maryland have been falling over themselves trying to influence the decision of the $34 billion company.

The District of Columbia has gone as far as offering a $25 billion incentive package for what Northrop Grumman estimates to be a measly 300 jobs, which will be filled primarily by company executives moving from Los Angeles!

The defense contractor presence on the DC metro is but one example of the ubiquitous signs of militarism in Washington. Standing out like sore thumbs, military personnel dressed in camouflage can be seen everywhere from the food court at the shopping mall to the line at the bank. Combat fatigues were ordered everyday wear for all service members, including those with desk jobs, following the September 11, 2001 attacks. I asked several camouflaged service members the reason behind the combat uniforms and all sheepishly replied that is was in support of the “troops in the field.” One woman told me, “That’s a good question. You feel kind of funny wearing this.” Looking down at her desert boots, she said, “It’s not exactly office wear.” But it is a clear and constant reminder that the nation continues to be on a war footing.

Signs calling for support of the troops can be found on everything from restaurant walls to dump trucks. Cheering on the “troops in the field” is also the Liberty gas station on Columbia Pike in Arlington. Directly above the gas pumps is a red, white and blue sign that reads “Support Our Troops.” This is either the result of disturbingly twisted logic or an astonishingly candid call for protecting U.S. access to Middle East oil reserves.

Walking the halls of Congress, you will find memorials at the offices of many representative and senators for the fallen troops from their district or state. What you will not find are any memorials for the 2,200 veterans who died in 2008 as a result of a lack of health insurance.

At Union Station, Amtrak passengers should not be surprised if a soldier or two cut in line. Signs in the station invite uniformed military personnel to skip to the head of the ticket line. According to Amtrak, which is the only Department of Defense approved rail passenger carrier in the US, it is a way for the company to “extend their thanks.” That’s all and good but why wouldn’t Amtrak want to do the same for teachers, healthcare professionals, firefighters, librarians or non-profit volunteers?

Much of this is not necessarily new; the militarization of our society has been progressing for decades, permeating our schools, research and development programs, law enforcement and culture. And despite the heavy concentration in Washington DC, the phenomenon is certainly not limited to the nation’s capital. The signs of militarism in our country are ever-present to the point of becoming virtually invisible, while subconsciously persuading us to accept violence and war as not only a suitable solution to conflict, but the only one.

The fighter jets and missile-firing drones are anything but invisible to the people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Let’s rebel against their apparent “normalcy” here in the US. As a start, contact Dan Langdon, CBS Outdoor’s Vice President and Regional Manager letting him know that ads for deadly weapons systems have no place on the DC metro, or anywhere else for that matter! Dan.Langdon@cbsoutdoor.com

Stephanie Westbrook is a U.S. citizen who has been living in Rome, Italy since 1991. She is active in the peace and social justice movements in Italy and spent the month of March in Washington DC participating in anti-war activities. She can be reached at steph@webfabbrica.com