Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Alan Grayson

(485 posts)
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 07:49 PM Nov 2013

Remote Killing

A few weeks ago, Congressman Alan Grayson conducted Washington, D.C.'s first-ever briefing on the innocent victims of U.S. military drone attacks. The central subject was an innocent 67-year-old grandmother who had been blown to bits, in front of her grandchildren, while she was gardening. The briefing began with this poignant and moving statement by our Congressman With Guts -- without notes, and from the heart:

Rep. Alan Grayson: Apart from the 100-plus people who are here in this room today, watching me, watching us, watching the testimony that you're about to hear, everyone else who hears this testimony -- it could be in the next room, it could be in another country – will be experiencing it remotely, through remote listening. That technology, in one form or another, has been with us for 150 years, to promote hearing, to promote listening, and promote seeing things, from far away. My children engage in it virtually all the time, and it's become basic in our lives.

Now, today, there's a new technology in our lives. That technology is remote killing -- the ability to kill people from a great distance, through drone warfare.

I want to thank everyone for coming here today, and addressing this important issue. I want to thank, in particular, Robert Greenwald, who for years has been a hero to the pro-peace movement here in the United States. His movies through Brave New Films have enlightened people about the circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and now in Pakistan, and also in Yemen.

I'm proud to be part of this event, and I'm grateful for the opportunity for the first time here to listen to the stories of people who have suffered from America's reliance on drones abroad, with great expense to them and to others. And let me be clear about this: the manner in which we choose, unilaterally, to kill from the skies, within the borders of other states with who we are not at war, is wrong. It's just too dangerous.

If you agree with me that, due to the extrajudicial nature of these killings, they should stop, then I welcome you. If you agree with me that, due to the belief that collateral damage in the form of the death of innocent people, an adult or a child, should never be acceptable, particularly at the will of one man, then I welcome you. If you agree with me that the unintended consequence of civilian deaths attributable to drone strikes, and the public opinion that has mobilized against this in every nation that has been victimized by drone strikes, ultimately engenders more hatred toward America than it could possibly extinguish through death, then I welcome you. And if you have yet to make up your mind about the pros and cons of these drone strikes, these miniature acts of war, then I am particularly glad that you're here this morning, or that you're listening from near or far.

I can think of no better person to shepherd us through the intricacies of drone use abroad than this person who I am proud to call my friend, Robert Greenwald. And as you see, he has a new documentary called “Unmanned: America's Drone Wars” coming out, that will be essential viewing for every American with a conscience. I urge everyone to see the full documentary and ask the pressing questions that will come to mind. That's why we're here today.

We also have some very special guests today: Rafiq ur Rehman and his children. I thank each of you for your willingness to be here, your bravery, and your ability to share your stories so that they could be heard. I wish that we didn't have to be here through the loss of someone you love. I know the trip here to America has been hard for you. Thank you for being with us.

I want to reiterate that the reason why you are here today is an important one. American drone policy is wrong; it's dead wrong. If American soldiers invaded a country with which we were not at war, killed civilians along the way, and then remained there for years afterwards running patrols against perceived enemies, killing them at will, we would find ourselves in an international crisis. If China deployed drones over the skies of Cleveland to kill those with anti-Chinese sentiments, I think you could imagine the results of that. Invading from the skies is no different from invading from the ground, and there is no constitutional legal framework in which these life-and-death decisions are being made.

There needs to be increased oversight of the decisions to fly lethal weapons over another nation and kill people, and we should never accept that their children or their loved ones in a far-away land are acceptable collateral damage. The world has learned from past wars. We've passed rules that every nation must adhere to when engaging in combat. The United States of America's decision to disavow these rules unilaterally, to engage in anonymous killing from the skies, does not make us safer. It simply engages the world in perpetual war.

I cannot think of any other type of human activity where we would accept the fact that 10 to 30 percent of the dead would be innocent. If we had 10 to 30 percent of the dead who were the victims of capital punishment in the United States, then clearly it would end overnight. If there were some kind of drug that ended up killing 10 to 30 percent of the patients who took that drug, we would never conclude that that drug were safe, no matter how effective it was. If there were a surgery that ended up killing 10 to 30 percent of its patients, that surgery would be forbidden, and doctors who performed that surgery would be put in prison. And yet we accept the idea that 10 to 30 percent of the victims of drone strikes are innocents -- and we should not, because that is fundamentally unacceptable.

In some of our ancient writings, shared by the people on this platform, there is some debate over which is the greatest of blessings. Is it hope? Is it faith? Is it charity? I have traveled around the world and talked to an awful lot of people about the subject, and I can tell you that the greatest blessing of all is peace. There needs to be more of it. Blessed be the peacemakers.

To show your support for our Congressman With Guts, click here.
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Remote Killing (Original Post) Alan Grayson Nov 2013 OP
Unless it's the IDF blowing Palestinian kids up, right Congressman Grayson? geek tragedy Nov 2013 #1
Is that similar to Remote PanHandling? Whisp Nov 2013 #2
, blkmusclmachine Nov 2013 #3
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
1. Unless it's the IDF blowing Palestinian kids up, right Congressman Grayson?
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 08:16 PM
Nov 2013
https://web.archive.org/web/20090114072522/http://grayson.house.gov/2009/01/congressman-alan-graysons-statement-on-gaza.shtml

(Washington, D.C.) – Congressman Alan Grayson, one of three incoming Jewish members of Congress, issued the following statement on the situation in Gaza.

“The circumstances confronting Israel are remarkable and clear. Hamas has been firing or allowing the firing of rockets into Israel, killing and maiming Israelis and threatening and disrupting their lives on a regular basis. This is unacceptable. Israeli civilians must not suffer from rocket attacks from or permitted by Hamas. Any country would seek to end attacks like this on its citizens. Military action is always a last resort, but in this case it is apparently necessary.

The humanitarian crisis is of deep concern, and it is important to note that Hamas’s behavior has been especially brutal. By using Palestinians as human shields, the group is needlessly multiplying the casualties in the area. If Hamas had an interest in minimizing the loss of life, its leaders would not be putting civilians in harm’s way or firing rockets at civilian targets. That is just not a way to solve the thorny set of problems confronting all people in the region.” # # #

 

Whisp

(24,096 posts)
2. Is that similar to Remote PanHandling?
Thu Nov 14, 2013, 08:30 PM
Nov 2013

I know that fundraising takes a very large part of any politicians life. That should be corrected and I hope one day it will be so you can work on the issues instead of work on the money.

I'm sure there are DUers that help you, and that's great.

What would also be great if you actually took a few seconds to show up in one of your threads and thank them.

Or maybe even answer a question or two.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Remote Killing