The Drones Quilt Project

The Drones Quilts made an appearance at the Interfaith Conference On Drone Warfare, held January 23 - 25, 2015 at Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, NJ. The event was sponsored by the Coalition for Peace Action.

The Drones Quilt Project is dedicated to the remembrance of the victims of U.S. Combat drones.

If you would like to make a block for a drones quilt, or are interested in hosting the Drones Quilt Project exhibit, please contact Leah Bolger:  leahbolger@comcast.net.

Interfaith Conference on Drone Warfare: Session 6 - Alternatives to Drones

Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ
January 23 - 25, 2015

Please Note: Sessions 7 & 8 were not filmed.

What should we do instead? What alternatives do we point to that help end or limit the use of drones?

What are some of the alternative practices to the use of lethal drones in stopping violence by non-state and state actors, with attention to prevention, defusing violence, and healing?

What can the NGO community do to encourage the U.S. Government to investigate and invest in these alternatives?

Moderator:

Catherine Osborn, Campaign Director, Shoulder to Shoulder

Speakers:

Antti Pentikainen, Executive Director of Finn Church Aid, Helsinki, Finland
Dr. David Cortright, Director of Policy Studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame
Sami Catovic, Executive Director, New Brunswick Islamic Center
Rev. Robert Moore, Executive Director, Peace Action Education
Jack Gilroy, Peace Activist, Broome County Peace Action

Interfaith Worship:

Rabbi Charles M. Feinberg, Adas Israel Congregation, Washington, DC
Rev. Sandy Strauss, Pennsylvania Council of Churches
Kavneet Singh, Secretary General, World Sikh Council - North America

And a Few Words From:

Rev. Peter E. Bauer, Minister, United Church of Christ

Production costs for this series of videos are partially underwritten by Coalition for Peace Action and by Broome County Peace Action.

Interfaith Conference on Drone Warfare: Session 5 - Strategic Implications of Policy Positions

Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ
January 23 - 25, 2015

The Effects of Drone Warfare:

Does the use of lethal drones advance the U.S. war against the violence of non-state actors? How does the use of lethal drones compare in effectiveness with other measures being used to counter violence by non-state actors? Are U.S. drone strikes actually inciting more anti-American sentiment (blow-back) and consequently unintentionally encouraging more recruits for Al-Qaeda and other non-state actors? How do other nations view U.S. policy on the use of lethal drones? How does the UN view lethal drone use? Has U.S. drone policy hurt U.S. foreign policy in any way? What are the effects on civilians in areas where lethal drones are being used? What are the effects on the drone operators?

The CIA:

Currently, the CIA is engaged in the military operations of drone warfare as well as intelligence. Should military operations be removed from the CIA and what are the impediments to doing so?

War Zones:

International law strongly prohibits the use of force by one state in the territory of another, except during war or with the explicit consent of the other state. What exactly is a war zone, and what areas are non-combat zones in this modern era where active conflicts by state and non-state actors are found all around the world?

Moderator:

Elizabeth Beavers, Legislative Associate, Friends Committee on National Legislation

Speakers:

Dr. Susan Thistlethwaite, Professor of Theology, Chicago Theological Seminary
Benjamin Friedman, Research Fellow in Defense and Homeland Security Studies, Cato Institute

Production costs for this series of videos are partially underwritten by Coalition for Peace Action and by Broome County Peace Action.

Interfaith Conference on Drone Warfare: Session 4 - Morality of Policy Positions

 

Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ

January 23 - 25, 2015

“Imminence”: In its February 2013 White Paper the Administration justifies the use of certain drone strikes as consistent with international laws of self-defense by stating that imminence “does not require ... clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” How does this attempted reinterpretation of “imminence” comport with the more traditional restrictive meaning of the concept in the Just War framework? Is there legal support for this definition of “imminence”? Does redefinition lower the barrier to go to war?

Assassination: Under what conditions in war is the assassination of people on a targeted list legal? Moral? What criteria should be used to be put someone on the list and who determines who should be on the target list? What kind of checks and balances exist in vetting the list?

Killing U.S. Citizens: Four U.S. citizens have been killed by drone strikes, including non -combatants, far from any battlefield. Are these killings legal? Do they raise different legal issues than the killing of non-citizens? What are the criteria to determine whether Americans have actually joined in a fight against the United States? Should the United States government have the right to treat them as if they have given up their right to due process and if so, when and how should this be done? Who makes that decision (a court, the Administration, Congress)?

Civilian Casualties: Drones may kill fewer civilians than other weapons. Does that make them more moral than other weapons? How should governments respond to civilian casualties? Should they pay reparations to the families of those killed or wounded by drones?

Moderator:

Dr. Sarah Sayeed, Interfaith Center of New York

Speakers:

Mary Ellen O’Connell, Professor of Law and Research Professor of International Dispute Resolution, University of Notre Dame Law School

Marjorie Cohn, Professor of Law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law; former President of the National Lawyers Guild, San Diego, CA

Pardiss Kebriaei, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York

Production costs for this series of videos are partially underwritten by Coalition for Peace Action and by Broome County Peace Action.

Interfaith Conference on Drone Warfare: Session 3 - Why Do People of Faith Care About This Issue?

 

Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ
January 23 - 25, 2015

Introduction by Rev. Richard Killmer, Project Director, Interfaith Conference On Drone Warfare

Moderated by Imam Sohaib Sultan, Muslim Chaplain, Princeton University

Rev. Dr. George Hunsinger, Professor of Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary:

What do the criteria of the Just War tradition in Judaism, Christianity and Islam say about the use of lethal drones: discrimination, protection of civilians, legitimate authority, probability of success, proportionality, imminence and last resort?

Rev. Susan Hayward, United States Institute of Peace:

How do the criteria and practices of JustPeace help in analyzing drone warfare? The criteria are just cause, right intention, participatory process, right relationship, reconciliation, restoration, and sustainability.

Rev. Isaac Villegas, Pastor, Chapel Hill Mennonite Fellowship:

What are the insights of pacifist religious traditions on this issue?

Robert Eshman, Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles:

What are the insights of Jewish theology on the issue of drone warfare?

Production costs for this series of videos are partially underwritten by Coalition for Peace Action and by Broome County Peace Action.

Interfaith Conference on Drone Warfare: Session 2 - Legal and Policy Issues

 

Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ
January 23 - 25, 2015

Session 2 began with a trailer from the film "Unmanned: America’s Drone War"

Domestic and International Law:

What current laws if any, both domestic and international, govern the use of drones? Are these laws being applied and obeyed? Is there a need for stronger enforcement mechanisms for existing standards? Much of 20th Century international law centers on the responsibilities of the nation state. How do these standards apply to private contractors, militant groups and other non-state actors who have not agreed to these standards? Is there a need for new legal standards about the production and use of lethal drones?

The Legal Questions about the U.S. Use Drones:

Authorization: What is the specific authorization for the Administration’s use of drones? If it is the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), adopted by Congress in September 2001 that provides blanket authority for the use of “all necessary and appropriate force” against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and affiliated forces, should that authorization be repealed or amended to be more limited or specific? Is there any other existing authorization that is applicable? Should the U.S. Congress have a greater role in the authorization and oversight of lethal drones and targeted killings?

Transparency and Accountability: What are the moral implications of the Administration’s lack of clarity about the legal justification for the use of drone warfare? Should the Administration be required to fully document the basis for and conduct of each lethal drone strike and make that available to Congress? To the public?

Introduction:

Rev. Robert Moore, Executive Director, Peace Action Education Fund

Moderator:

Jim Winkler, General Secretary, National Council of Churches

Speakers:

Peter Lumsdaine, Founder, Alliance to Resist Robotic Warfare & Society
Gabor Rona, Visiting Professor of Law, Cardozo Law School
Elizabeth Beavers, Legislative Associate, Friends Committee on National Legislation
Wendy Patten, Senior Policy Analyst, Open Society Policy Center, Washington, DC

Production costs for this series of videos are partially underwritten by Coalition for Peace Action and by Broome County Peace Action.

Interfaith Conference on Drone Warfare: Session 1 - Basic Facts About Drones

Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, NJ
January 23 - 25, 2015

Statement from the Conference Organizers:

U.S. drone strikes continue in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq and Syria. On the weekend of January 23 - 25, people of faith from across the nation, many representing denominations, faith groups and religious organizations, will come to Princeton Theological Seminary to address the issue of drone warfare.

Those attending will accomplish three tasks:

1. Clarify the nature of lethal drones. Policy recommendations will be made by the conference to the U.S. government. Speakers with expertise in military strategy, international law, U.S. law, and national security will make presentations followed by discussion by all participants.

2. Apply our various traditions to our understanding of drone warfare to more fully understand this issue. People of all faiths are invited to participate.

3. Recommendations will be developed for how the religious community will address this issue.

Session One: Why This Conference, and the Basic Facts about Drones

Introduction: Rev. Richard Killmer, Project Director, Interfaith Conference On Drone Warfare

Moderator: Rabbi Charles M. Feinberg, Adas Israel Congregation, Washington, DC

The Most Reverend Richard E. Pates, Roman Catholic Bishop of Des Moines, Iowa

Jeremy Waldren, University Professor, New York University School of Law

Introduction: Rev. Robert Moore, Executive Director, Peace Action Education

Dr. Rush Holt, CEO, American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science,
Former US Representative for New Jersey's 12th Congressional District

Dr. Maryann Cusimano-Love, Associate Professor of International Relations of The Catholic University of America

Interfaith Worship

Imam Sohaib Sultan, Muslim Chaplain, Princeton University

Rev. Sandy Strauss, Pennsylvania Council of Churches

Production costs for this series of videos are partially underwritten by Coalition for Peace Action and by Broome County Peace Action.

DEC Public Hearing on the Proposed Constitution Pipeline

 

East Middle School, Binghamton, NY
January 12, 2015

Summary of the Arguments Tendered in Favor of the Proposed Pipeline:

1. "I need a job."

 

While I sympathize with this, a transition to renewables would provide many times the number of good, permanent jobs as compared to this or any fossil fool pipeline. And when you get home from work, you'd still have a livable planet.

2. "There will be widespread benefits to the economy."

Again, nothing compared to the benefits of a transition to renewable energy, which will have the added benefit of avoiding the substantial downsides of fossil fuel extraction and use.

3. "The gas will be cheap."

We should not be providing economic incentives to waste energy and to produce more greenhouse gasses. The earth simply cannot afford this.

4. "In the old days we used to just toss oil and chemicals onto the ground and into the water. It didn't hurt us then and it won't hurt us now."

 

No clue as to the fact that cancer and other degenerative diseases are epidemic, and maybe this has something to do with it.

5. "We've been raping and pillaging the planet since ancient times. Why stop now?"

No comment.

6. "The regulatory agencies will protect you."

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
 

From the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation:

Public Comments Sought On Draft State Permit Applications For Proposed Construction Of The Interstate Constitution Pipeline

Public Comments Will Be Accepted From Dec. 24, 2014 through Jan. 30, 2015

The public is invited to comment on permit applications the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) received for the proposed, federally regulated Constitution Pipeline and an upgrade to the Iroquois Wright Compressor station in Schoharie County that is part of the project. The Constitution Pipeline is a proposed interstate natural gas pipeline that would traverse though Broome, Chenango, Delaware and Schoharie counties.
 

Because the proposed pipeline and compressor station upgrade are components of an Interstate Natural Gas Transmission project, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was responsible for conducting an environmental review of the project and has the authority to approve the pipeline route. FERC issued a final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in October. Additional federal reviews and approvals for the project also are necessary. The FEIS can be viewed at: http://elibrary.FERC.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20141024-4001 
 

DEC maintains the authority to review applications for specific permits and approvals. These include an Air Title V permit for the proposed compressor station upgrade, as well as a Water Quality Certification, a Protection of Waters permit, a Water Withdrawal permit and a Freshwater Wetlands permit for state-protected wetlands and adjacent areas for the pipeline installation.
 

Comments can be submitted to:
 

Stephen M. Tomasik
DEC - Division of Environmental Permits
625 Broadway, 4th Floor
Albany, NY 12233-1750
dec.sm.constitution@dec.ny.gov
 

Copies of the FEIS and DEC permit application documents can be viewed online at: http://www.constitutionpipeline.com/. Printed copies are available at:
 

Information on the Iroquois Wright Compressor Station can viewed at: http://www.iroquois.com/documents/WIP_-_NYSDEC_Air_Permit_Application_7-26-13.pdf.