Maine Peace Action Committee

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The Maine Peace Action Committee(MPAC) was founded in 1974 with aspecial focus on ending the war in

Indochina. MPAC has been concerned with oursociety’s violent and militaristic nature, which ismanifested in a lack of humane and progressivevalues and a tendency towards solving problemsvia destructive means.

Our general orientation takes the double focusof analyzing and opposing militarism, or theefforts to use nuclear weapons and other militarymeans to solve human problems, and imperialism,or the efforts by powerful nations to use economicand military means to impose their will upon lesspowerful peoples.

Our nation’s pursuit of these policies under-mines its ability to deal with the needs of its owncitizens and places us in greater danger of war.Our tax dollars are used to develop first strikecapable weapons and to support repressiveregimes abroad. Consequently, there are fewerdollars available for needed human services bothhere and abroad.

If we direct our energy and other resourcesinto weapons systems, there is little left forcreative solutions to problems such as the worldfood and fuel shortages which threaten oursurvival.

We have seen human needs are neglected byan existing government, and when that govern-ment represses groups attempting to meet thoseneeds, violent upheaval has resulted. Our govern-ment’s military economic support for such repres-sive regimes has embroiled us in armed conflictswhich have escalated to full scale war and couldmean inevitable global destruction.

We support efforts to deal with each of theseproblems since we see them as resulting andcontributing to an economic and political systemover which most of us have little control.

We in MPAC believe that while none of theseefforts by itself can bring about a completely justsociety, together we can work toward morecomprehensive solutions. We feel that we canbest contribute by challenging militarism and

imperialism and proposing alternatives to thesepolicies.

We find we can act effectively if we focus on alimited number of specific issues and campaigns.

We need projects which can:

1. unite people within our group

2. provide opportunities for action resulting inmeasurable achievement

3. link our efforts with national campaigns; and

4. demonstrate the dynamics of militarism andimperialism.

For our activities to be successful, we need toeducate ourselves about issues, analyze thecontributing factors, investigate alternative solu-tions, decide strategy for implementing alterna-tives, and share our understanding with thecommunity to enlist their support.

MPAC believes that people united and work-ing together can redefine our values and changeour approach to problems so that we shall be ableto live in a free and creative society; indeed, suchefforts are imperative if we are to survive.

Table of Contents Vol. 39, No. 1 • Fall 2013

Statement of Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Individual Growth through Engagement for Positive Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dan White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Seeking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hilary Warner-Evans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Think Before You Eat! (recipe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cat Fletcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Finding Peace in Tibet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dan Shorette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Collateral Damage (artwork) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Beverly Stessel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

“Thou Shall Not Kill” in A Killing World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Doug Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Bradley (Chelsea) Manning and Edward Snowden: American Heroes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Andy Piascik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Deconstructing Drones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Eric Collins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

UNIVERSITY OF MAINENONDISCRIMINATION POLICY

The University of Maine does not discriminateon the grounds of race, color, religion, sex,

sexual orientation, including transgender statusand gender expression, national origin, citizenstatus, disability, genetic information or veteran’sstatus in employment, education, and all otherprograms and activities. The following person hasbeen designated to handle inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies: Director, Office of EqualOpportunity, 101 North Steven Hall, 581-1226.

INDIVIDUAL GROWTH THROUGHENGAGEMENT FOR POSITIVE CHANGE

Page 2 MPAC Newsletter

While it is true that the major issues weface socially and globally don't receivea fraction of the attention they

warrant, so too is it the case concerning theempowering and hopeful efforts in resolving theseissues and creating a thriving world. PaulHawken, environmental activist, has spoken andwritten about the steady growth of organizedgrassroots engagement in creating positivechange. Hawken describes the purpose of this“unnamed movement” of laterally-organized andpeople-powered organizations as offering “solu-tions to what appear to be insoluble dilemmas:poverty, global climate change, terrorism, ecolog-ical degradation, polarization of income, loss ofculture (Hawken)”.

About fifty years ago, when humanity was firstreceiving back images of Earth from outer space,many people experienced a change in conscious-ness. The visual representation of Earth floatingin dark, empty space allowed many to perceivethe basic truth of how we only have this oneplanet to live on and that we are all in thistogether. The enormity of Earth's value began todawn upon our society and prompted the start ofthe environmental movement which continues tothis day. This perception of our interconnected-ness within our invaluable home has deepenedwith time and is directly linked to the manifesta-tion of the millions of organizations around theworld engaged for change. Paul Hawken describesthe vast grassroots movement as an auto-immuneresponse of Earth to address and end the pervad-ing self-destructive forces of our planet.

Hawken also reports that there is a “fierce-ness” found in this progressive change movement(Hawken). Those who are deeply involved withthe work of change, who live and breathe thischange, rather than being immobilized by aware-ness of injustice, often transmute the naturalreactions of outrage and sadness into determinedand constructive work for change. While despairis a common and understandable reaction to thecrises underway, it may be surprising to some tofind out that the work for change is a source ofgreat joy for many within the movement.Meaning, connection, and purpose enrich thelives of those dedicated to creating a just, sustain-able, and peaceful world.

The intention of this piece is to encouragepeople to participate in the work for change.Towards this end, I challenge people to take thestep into involvement. I offer two basic motiva-tions for consideration.

First, because it is our duty to each otherand the life processes of Earth that we dowhat we can to secure the future of life onthis planet, and to work to end unnecessarysuffering and violence where ever it isfound. The motivation to join positivechange can be found in observing ourirrefutable interdependence. As a messagefrom Occupy Wall Street defiantly insists,we owe nothing to the big banks of WallStreet and we do owe everything to eachother. Indeed, we all need nothing less thana truly interdependent society—a societywhere we can all depend upon each other,trust each other, and protect each other.

Continuing on that note, a second motivationcomes from the fact that we benefit and grow asindividuals when we work cooperatively witheach other in pursuit of the best human values.We need to collaborate in order to live our rela-tionships in the deepest and richest ways and tobring meaning and purpose to our most joyousand fulfilling creative work. This movementHawken speaks of is an awesome opportunity forpersonal growth through becoming absorbed inthis new way of life based on true community,sustainability, humane values, peace, justice,health and wellbeing.

These two motivations pivot upon our inter-dependent nature and the innate will of people tosatisfy needs and grow as individuals together inour many types of relationships. In the nextsection, I will address two related obstructions tosatisfying our needs and developing to our fullestpotential, and discuss how overcoming theseobstructions is our challenge.

Obstructions and theChallenge of Our Time

First, basic material conditions must be satisfiedif people are to have health and wellbeing

necessary for growth. Many people in the worldare denied sufficient access to food, water, and

medicine, are exploited, live amidst war andother conditions which clearly inhibit physicalhealth and personal growth. In our society, andthis is particularly relevant for college graduates

today, a lack of jobs, inequitable wealth distribu-tion, and impossibly high debt are conditionsmore and more depriving people of their means ofmeeting needs.

The other major form of obstruction to meet-ing needs is the beliefs, attitudes, and normalizedways of relating and communicating. Most of uslearned in one form or another, from countlessinfluences, that we are separate beings, that life isnaturally about competition with each other, andthat a valuable, secure and successful life isachieved through attaining a decent or highpaying job which allows for purchasing extramaterial things in addition to satisfying basicneeds. These stories and beliefs are rooted in

central assumptions of domi-nant political, legal,economic, religious, academicand media institutions. Formany people, these beliefskeep people feeling separate,unknown and alone, andcreate common mental-emotional states of anxietyand depression which keep usfrom living full lives.

In observing both theinternal realms of beliefs, atti-tudes and feelings, and exter-nal realm of material condi-tions, dominant political,

economic, military, media and other social struc-tures, we see that the two realms are intercon-nected. A troubled internal experience is thecause and reflection of a troubled external reality.In resolving to empower oneself and transformbeyond limitations imposed by a social systembased on separation, exploitation, commoditiza-tion and other dehumanizing factors, I remindthe reader again of one's duty to the rest of life,and prescribe the path of engagement with themovement highlighted by Paul Hawken.

Essentially, our challenge is of becomingactive, transformative, co-creators of society, and

See Engagement on Page 3

Fall 2013 Page 3

masters of our own lives. This is a powerful chal-lenge for us because those programs we haveinherited have taught us to be the opposite, basi-cally, to be spectators and consumers. In the nextsection, I will discuss this area further. Peoplehave written books about the intertwinedeconomic, technological, political and otherfactors that have lent themselves to this develop-ment, so in the interest of brevity, observing theideas and vision of one powerful and ethicallyvoid individual named Edward Bernays exempli-fies the non-participatory condition of society,and reveals the attitudes of those who dominatein making the decisions and rules.

If We Don't Participate, They Dominate

Bernays was a top propagandist for governmentand corporations in the mid 20th century. He

studied the work of his uncle Sigmund Freud anddeveloped techniques of psychological manipula-tion to be used by political and economic elitesto mold people's thoughts, views, and motiva-tions. In one essay called “The Engineering ofConsent”, Bernays discusses his views on peoplebeing too stupid to be trusted with participatoryroles in the operation of democracy and economy.According to Bernays, given the unworthiness ofall of us, the best case scenario is for the politicaland economic elite—the few powerful political,military, and business leaders—to use propagandato influence, or “engineer”, the consent of thepublic. Bernays worked on various corporateadvertising campaigns, with the government on

presidential campaigns and in the propagandaagainst communism, and is best known for hiswork in helping the US government and UnitedFruit Company (known today as Chiquita) over-throw the democratic government of Guatemala.

As mentioned, there are many other factors atplay other than these propaganda tactics. Forinstance, stagnating wages since the 1970s haveled to people working many more hours, accumu-lating more debt, and thus living less sociallyengaged lives. Technology, especially the TV andmore recently computers and hand held devices,have compounded the alienation of the publicfrom each other and from engagement in politicaland social affairs.

The dominant agenda of the powerholders isclear—keep people unfulfilled, in the dark, and in

fear. Inevitably, we all have beeninfluenced by these forces whilegrowing up in this society. Whilefor many in the world and for agrowing many in our society,material lack is the obstacle ofsatisfying the innate need forself-determination, for manypeople in the industrializedworld, it is the influences on thelevels of belief, self-conception,feelings, which are the primaryobstacles. Despite (or perhaps inlight of) what self-absorbed anddelusional rationalizations elitepowerholders such as Bernaysbelieve in to justify the subjuga-tion and manipulation of the public throughorchestrated propaganda, it boils down to this: Inorder for them to dominate, they need a publicwhich doesn't participate.

Participating in the great movement of savingour species and creating justice is the action ofempowerment and liberation. For many in theworld, based on material conditions, there is notmuch people can do other than staying alive. Formany of us in our society, we have the opportu-nity to examine and release those inhibitingbeliefs which have been propagated by the likes ofBernays, adopt empowering mentalities based onthe reality of our interconnectedness, and actual-ize this reality through social engagement.

The potential future many of us envision,which is based on working on the scaffolding of

its foundation, is very sweet.Collaboration, cooperation,systems in harmony withnature with nature's beautypervading cities and townspopulated with participatory,interdependent neighbor-hoods in which everyone isable to pursue work that istheir joy and with everyonehelping to do the work thatmust be done, as well as anend to war, poverty, hunger,and unnecessarydisease...This is the trend inbuilding.

Though this vision is not utopian and isgrounded in concrete actions of today, we mustalso be aware of the actual conditions we arefacing. Debts are rising to almost laughinglyabsurd levels while the corporate rich, to whomthe public is still economically and legallysubservient, keep breaking record profits.Meanwhile, Obama and other corporate puppetpoliticians make speeches and proposals aboutgetting the United States back on track, howwe're still the leader and envy of the world, andmore of the same old rhetoric. Some have pointedout comparisons to the delusions of the politicalelite during the twilight days of the Romanempire. The severity of the harm being perpetu-ated as limits are reached and crises converge isimpetus for us to act all the more quickly, and theunraveling of the current system is opportunity

for us to do strengthen the alternative systems sothey may sufficiently replace the old ones, andengage in resistance of the still dominant violentstructures.

Conclusion

If you are eyeing the peace and social justice andenvironmental organizations with curiosity or

interest, I wholeheartedly encourage you tobecome involved. Go to a meeting, go to a potluck, go to a rally, or whatever, but set the prior-ity of engagement, and follow through withaction. If it is challenging, then all the morereason to do it. Self-growth and fulfillment willnever come from staying within the familiar andcomfortable. An incredible amount of innertransformation is possible in a surprisingly shortamount of time, and since that is true, then thesame is also true for social change. It is no coinci-dence that the engaged action that will save lifeon this planet is also that which will fulfill us. Ihope to work along side you in creating a viablefuture and to stand by you in defending the rightsof all people and life on Earth.

—Dan White

Source

Hawken, Paul. “To Remake the World.” OrionMagazine. Orion Magazine, n.d. Web. 1 Nov.2013.

Engagement(continued from Page 2)

SEEKING

Page 4 MPAC Newsletter

We sat there on the street playing musicand our tunes floated through theearly afternoon air. “The Butterfly,”

“Silver Spear,” “La Guinille,” tunes we hadlearned from real people, a living tradition, meantto be shared, passed on. I played bodhran and shewas on flute. It was a glorious day on which toend the summer. Soon we would find ourselvesback in the maze that was Mt. Ararat HighSchool but, for now, summer lingered on, andwith it, the tradition of busking.

Busking. The word means literally, “to seek.”The old ballad hero “Johnny O'Braidesly” tells hishunting dogs to busk. But in our sense it meantsitting on the street to play music, putting out ahat, and hoping generous passersby would put ina few dollars. Most people, if they put in anythingat all, will put in a couple one dollar bills, or ahandful of coins, seeking to lighten their pockets.Occasionally one gets a five or a ten, but thoseare rare.

But busking is more than a way to make cash;it is not done purely for the profit of the musician,but to share one's art with a community. As alltrue musicians know, we are not on this earth forourselves alone, but to make others happy.Accordingly, Morgana and I had responded to therequests of our audience both good and bad,moving across the street when someone yelledout of a second story window to be quiet andacquiescing to a little girl's plea for us to play“The Fox,” her favorite song. Such is the natureof the art and I have often received both goodand bad responses about my music. But eventhough I was used to occasionally interactingwith people while busking, nothing had preparedme for what happened that afternoon.

When we were nearly done playing, about topack up and leave, a group of men came downMaine Street, from the Topsham side, where thestreet went up to meet the old Cabot mill and theAndroscoggin River. There were probably about

five of them, most middle aged or older, all wear-ing t-shirts and shorts or sweatpants. One had acane, another a cart filled with bottles. They gaveoff a general air of what I can only describe asneglect. I knew instinctively that they were at thevery bottom of the socioeconomic scale, maybeeven homeless, although, in my sheltered, rural,middle class existence, I had had very little inter-action with people I could clearly pinpoint aslower class. And as we continued playing, theystopped to listen.

We ended our tune on our own time and, oneof them spoke to us. I have no recollection of hiswords, nor ours in return. I only remember thathe thought the music was beautiful and that theystayed for two more tunes. We continued with“The Southwind” and something else. I was shy. Ihad never had a stranger stay this long before tohear me play. At the end of the third tune, wepaused. He turned aside, said something I didn'tcatch to his fellows as they stood, a little to theside. He thanked us again, bent down, andfollowed his comrades down the street. I lookedin the hat. There, beside the couple of dollars wehad already made, were two dimes.

I wanted to give it back to him, to say “Wait! Idon't need this.” For I didn't, not like he did. Butsomehow I knew that was the wrong thing to do.I knew it would be an insult, that he would neveraccept it. When, shortly thereafter, Morgana andI divided up the money, I tucked my dime into aspecial place in my purse. I would never spend it.I would keep it forever, I told myself.

I have since lost my dime. But I have not lostmy memory of what occurred that day. I wish Icould say that it had inspired me to do somethingethical, maybe to work selflessly for economicjustice. But no such event immediately followed.In the short run, my life went on much as before.But still I hold on to this story, the group ofunkempt men, the two dimes sitting in the hat.Why, after the passage of time, does it remain soin my mind? Is it to remind myself that I reallyshould be making a greater effort to improveeconomic equality? To remind myself to be gener-ous to others? Perhaps. But really I think that thisscene convinced me of the essential goodness ofhuman beings, that someone who had almostnothing still found twenty cents to give to acouple of teenage street musicians.

—Hilary Warner-Evans

THINK BEFORE YOU EAT!

Tofu Steaks with Shiitakes and Veggies

Ingredients

1 package extra firm tofu, drained3 tbs. dark sesame oil3 tbs. soy sauce1 cup julienne-cut red bell peppers1 cup match-stick cut carrotpinch of salt4 garlic cloves, thinly sliced1 (5 oz.) package shiitake mushrooms½ cup vegetable broth1 tbs. honey2 tbs. sherry vinegar ½ tbs. crushed red pepperand a little bit of love!

Directions

1. Cut tofu in 4 cubes, stab with a fork a fewtimes. Place in a dish with 1 tbs. oil and 1 tbs.soy sauce. Let the tofu soak for 15 minutes.The fork holes will allow the tofu to soak inmore of the sauce!

2. Heat a skillet, and add 2 tbs. oil, bell pepper,carrot, salt, garlic, and mushroom. After afew minutes add 2 tbs. soy sauce, broth,honey, vinegar, crushed red pepper, and somelove.

3. Remove the tofu from marinade. Cook tofuin a grill pan on high heat, about 3 minuteson each side. Coat with marinade whilecooking.

4. Place the tofu in a serving dish with theveggies! This will serve around 4 people.

Living a vegetarian lifestyle is good for themind, body, soul, and planet. There are count-less reasons to go vegetarian or vegan, whetherit be for your own health, to minimize yourcarbon footprint, or for the rights of animals.Cutting animal products or byproducts out ofyour diet will contribute to a happier, healthierplanet. If you don’t feel that you can go coldturkey and cut meat out of your diet altogether,try cutting down on it. Meatless Mondays are agreat start! Here are some points to ponder:

ê Factory farms contribute to over 173,000miles of polluted rivers and streams.

ê 95% of pesticide residue in an averageAmerican diet is from animal products.

ê 70% of grain produced in the US goes to feedanimals bred for slaughter.

—Cat Fletcher

FINDING PEACE IN TIBET

Fall 2013 Page 5

Ever since I converted to Tibetan Buddhism,I have been trying to learn more aboutTibet and the man I now follow, the 14th

Dalai Lama. Born in 1935, the reincarnation ofthe 13th DalaiLama, TenzinGyatso has beenlabeled a traitorby China. Evenso, he has beenable to lead ane f f e c t i v egovernment-in-exile in Indiaever since flee-ing Tibet in1959 after afailed uprising.

It is interest-ing to me howthe Dalai Lamais very careful when talking about Tibet. In aninterview with NBC News he explained hiscommitment to a middle-way approach wherebyTibet, “remains within the People’s Republic ofChina enjoying a high degree of self-rule orautonomy.”

For me, this approach reflects the difficultiesthe Dalai Lama faces in keeping peace amongthose who wish Tibet to be an independent coun-try again, and Chinese officials who consider hima dangerous separatist. For example, when he

visited the U.K. last year, his meeting with PrimeMinister David Cameron touched off a seriousdiplomatic incident when China declared themeeting to be interference in its internal affairs.

China appears todetest his way ofadvocating peace.

Meanwhile theDalai Lama hasconstantly beenfighting for theprotection of theTibetan people. Inawarding the DalaiLama the NobelPeace Prize in1989, theNorwegian NobelCommittee praised“his consistentresistance to the

use of violence in his people’s struggle to regaintheir liberty.” Perhaps it just goes to show us thatin this world we can still compromise or at leasttry without losing sight of our own values.

I think what peace requires is a sense that youcannot think you are going to have an easy way ofconvincing everyone. You are going to have somehardships, much like the Dalai Lama has faced inhis life to not give up. We must base what weadvocate of facts that exist, then we must educateourselves and others on the matter, then we must

let that message spread through others. This way,things can happen naturally, and yes not every-one will agree, but at least we got the idea outthere. With that in mind we must continue ourwork in advocating our message of peace to thosewho will listen.

—Dan Shorette

Collateral Damage

Beverly Stessel, 2008

“THOU SHALL NOT KILL” IN A KILLING WORLD

Page 6 MPAC Newsletter

Glenn D. Paige is the Founder of the Centerfor Global Nonkilling in Honolulu,Hawaii. The CGNK now engages 700

scholars in 300 universities and institutes in 73countries in 19 Nonkilling Research Committees.I serve as a Research Committee member.

In his influential book, Nonkilling GlobalPolitical Science, Glenn Paige insightfully analyzesthe nature of our dominant assumptions, princi-ples, ideologies, and ways of being in a world ofkilling societies. He convincingly demonstratesthe need for us to dedicate ourselves to the goalsof a human community, from the smallest to theglobal, that is characterized by life in a nonkillingsociety. Such a nonkilling society exposes, chal-lenges, and resists the assumptions, values, powerrelations, and ideological justifications foundthroughout history in killing societies, includingviolent and lethal views of human nature and ofpolitical reality. No killing of humans and nothreats to kill characterize a qualitatively differ-ent nonkilling society.

The integrally related means and ends ofworking cooperatively to realize a nonkilling soci-ety are essential for transforming our world ofkilling societies. This is necessary if humans are torealize their moral and overall human potential

for self-development and for community andglobal development. However, even on morenarrow pragmatic grounds, it is imperative thatwe dedicate ourselves to working for nonkillingsocieties, since the present values and priorities ofkilling societies are economically, militarily, polit-ically, culturally, socially, religiously, and environ-mentally unsustainable. The present dominant

values and structural rela-tions of killing societiesare not only morally andspiritually bankrupt, butare threatening humansurvival on this planet.

The political scientistGlenn Paige and manyothers who accept hiswork as the key founda-tional approach haveemphasized the extent towhich political science hasbeen a killing disciplineand the need to create anonkilling politicalscience. They also grantthat nonkilling can beapplied to other disci-plines and contextualized ways of living. Sincepolitical science is not my discipline, it has notbeen my major concern. In fact, in ways thatnonkilling political science could easily grant, Ihave found that political science, with notableexceptions, has been a very violent and killingdiscipline. Even within the dominant educationalstatus quo of our killing society, there are other

disciplinary approaches that have been moreopen to nonviolent and nonkilling alternatives.

Why has political science been such a killingdiscipline? With notable exceptions, why haspolitical science been so reactionary and violentin assuming and justifying killing and killing soci-eties? I would submit that we can account formuch of this killing approach because the disci-

pline of political science tends to empha-size that it is an “objective,” “scientific,”“value-free” approach in which it ispresenting and analyzing the politicalassumptions, values, power relations,dynamics, models, and justifications ofpolitical “reality.” In rather uncriticallyassuming and not challenging the politicalapproaches and frameworks of the domi-nant killing political realities, as its disci-plinary perspective, political science, ofcourse, is far from value-neutral or value-free and usually reflects and is frequentlycomplicit with immoral and dangerousrealities of killing societies. In my experi-ences, while granting that a nonkillingpolitical science is welcome and urgentlyneeded, other disciplinary approaches inphilosophy, ethics, sociology, ecologicalstudies, women’s studies, religious studies,alternative economics, and other fieldshave often had less of an integral relationwith killing societies than has politicalscience.

Nonkilling and Nonviolence

“Nonkilling” is a term less familiar and muchless frequently used than nonviolence. Indeed,while killing is a frequently used term, nonkillingis not. What is the relationship betweennonkilling and the more familiar nonviolence? Invery general terms, we may propose that killingalways entails violence, and that nonkillingalways entails nonviolence. The reverse is notalways the case. Not all violence involves killing.For example, specific acts of psychologicalviolence involving hatred, economic violenceinvolving exploitation, and religious violenceinvolving intolerance may not result in killing.And not all nonviolence involves nonkilling or atleast does not place primary emphasis onnonkilling. For example, specific acts of nonvio-lence emphasizing compassion and loving kind-ness or economic egalitarian relations of justicemay acknowledge but not emphasize the central-ity of nonkilling.

Nonkilling would seem to be more narrow andmore focused than the more general and diversemeanings of nonviolence. This commitment toprinciples and ways of being in the world express-ing nonkilling, while challenging and confrontingthe dominant power relations and forces of killingsocieties, has the advantage of allowing for morefocused formulations and practical applicationsthan many of the moral and spiritual approachesto nonviolence. Whether M. K. Gandhi’s philos-ophy and practices of nonviolence and otherprofound nonviolent approaches have strengthslacking in the more focused emphasis onnonkilling is another significant consideration forthose committed to nonkilling societies.

In my approach and interpretations, there areno simple, adequate, essentialized answers orsolutions to the most difficult questions andissues with regard to nonkilling today. Theuniversal values and structural relations ofnonkilling, essential for our understanding of andresponding to contemporary killing societies andkilling disciplinary approaches, always need to be

See Nonkilling on Page 7

Why has political science been such a killing discipline?

Fall 2013 Page 7

contextualized dialectically in all kinds ofnuanced, complex, often ambiguous and contra-dictory ways. This requires an open-endeddynamic approach; deepened and broadenedinsights and analysis with the upholding of ourfundamental unity as human beings with arespect for the diversity of multiple paths tononkilling societies; active engagement with thedevelopment of practical skills in the problem-solving experiments with killing and nonkillingcultures and societies; the nurturing of moralcharacter, courageous and highly motivatedauthentic living, mutual support, perseveranceand hope in the real possibility of a nonkillingsociety; and a commitment to reformulate andreappropriate our interpretations and practices innew, creative, contextually relevant ways.

While accepting that the absolute universalcommitment to a culture of nonkilling commitsone to working toward a much more nonviolentworld, the question arises whether an acceptanceof absolute and universal ideals, principles, andvalues of nonviolence ever allows, in exceptionalsituations, for killing? This challenge to anabsolute of nonkilling, as contextualized in themost challenging and difficult situations, iswhether one can in practice reject all killing asunjustifiable or at least as unnecessary violence.We’ll now consider such a well-intentioned chal-lenge to a universal culture of nonkilling thatseems to uphold the absolute principle thou shaltnot kill should never be violated.

A Nonviolent Challenge to Nonkilling

Almost all challenges to any nonkillingapproach that critiques, resists, and proposes

alternatives to killing societies obviously comefrom those upholding the need for and adequacyof killing approaches, values, cultures, and disci-plines. In terms of dominant hierarchical struc-

tures of power, money, and influence,status quo education and socializa-tion, the corporate media, andHobbesian and other secular andreligious views of human nature, thisis to be expected.

What is more surprising is a chal-lenge from some well-intentioned,admirable proponents of nonvio-lence. Perhaps most surprising, evento most Indians, are hundreds ofpages of writings by M. K. Gandhi,the best known and most influentialmodern proponent of the philosophyand practices of nonviolence. Whileupholding the absolute value ofnonviolence and an exceptionalcommitment to avoiding killing, even when itcomes to his extreme vegetarian diet and his will-ingness to be killed rather than to inflict harmfulsuffering on others, Gandhi often struggles withthe most difficult situations in which it is difficultto find a nonviolent, moral, and spiritualresponse.

Gandhi and some other proponents of theabsolute ideals and ends, means, and values ofnonviolence, which would seem to encompassthe more specific cases of nonkilling and theabsolute rejection of killing societies, sometimesstruggle with real life, contextualized situations inwhich there seem to be no viable nonviolentalternatives.

How does one committed to nonkilling andnonviolence respond to a situation in which apsychologically insane or extremely mentallyunbalanced individual is in the act of killing chil-dren in a school? How does one respond to a situ-ation in which a rapist is in the act of committingthe rape? How does one respond to a situation ofexplosive ongoing terrorism? How does onerespond to a situation in which human life is

threatened by malaria-carrying mosquitoes orattacking animals? In other words, how does anonviolent and nonkilling human being and soci-ety respond to real life, violent, killing situationsin which there are no opportunities for nonkillingdialogue and nonviolent conflict resolution; noshort-term nonviolent responses that can preventthe ongoing killing; and no long-term nonviolentresponses that can focus on the root causes andbasic determinants of the killing society and theneed for the transformation from killing tononkilling?

Surprising to most readers, Gandhi, very reluc-tantly, concedes that in the most difficult moraland spiritual situations, killing may be allowed. Inmany writings, he analyzes how Indians shouldrespond to the life-threatening attacks by“menacing monkeys,” and he submits that theyshould sometimes kill them. He even analyzes theinevitability of killing life in terms of his vegetar-ian diet, measures to improve hygiene, and othernecessities of a nonviolent society. In most cases,he discusses the unavoidability of some involun-tary killing and violence as part of our humanmode of being in the world, but he also includesexceptional cases of voluntary killing. And thisextends beyond the killing of nonhuman sentientlife to situations that may involve the killing ofother human beings. He even writes of whenkilling may count as ahimsa (nonviolence, benev-olent harmlessness)? How is this possible?

Nonkilling(continued from Page 6)

See Nonkilling on Page 8

How does one committed to nonkilling and nonviolence respondto a situation in which a psychologically insane or extremelymentally unbalanced individual is in the act of killing children ina school?

Page 8 MPAC Newsletter

A More Adequate Approach toNonkilling

In a nonkilling approach, it is important toemphasize that over 99 percent of the time,

when we intentionally or unintentionally act aspart of killing and violent societies, there arenonkilling and nonviolent alternatives. We maynot be aware of or act on these nonkilling alter-natives for all kinds of reasons: We are socialized,rewarded, and punished as part of killing soci-eties; we are socialized to accept violent andkilling stereotypes about human nature, thenature of others, and our incapacity to transformkilling to nonkilling societies; we experienceunderstandable insecurity and fear when consid-ering challenging and resisting those with powerover our lives in killing societies; and we lack theknowledge, skills, creativity, and training todevelop nonkilling values and commitments.

But how do we respond to those killing situa-tions in which there are no viable nonkilling andnonviolent alternatives? In other writings, Idevelop some analysis of how a nonviolentapproach might have been used by Jews andothers in responding to Hitler and the Nazis; howa nonviolent approach might have responded justbefore the terrorist attacks occurred on9/11/2001; and how a nonviolent approach mighthave responded while the terrorist killings weretaking place in Mumbai, India from the 26/11 to29/11/2008. I’ll briefly refer to the Mumbai terror-ism for my response to a killing situation in whichthere are no nonviolent options.

In my analysis of nonviolence, that maintainsthe absolute ideals and values of nonkilling and iscontextually informed by real violent and killingrelative situations, nonkilling human beings whowere in the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST)on 26 November, as innocent civilians were beingkilled, needed to stop the terrorist killings. Thismay have required violent force and possiblykilling. The terrorists, who were doing the killing,had no interest in engaging in nonkillingdialogue. Even if one intervenes courageouslyand says “kill me,” the terrorists would simply killyou and then continue killing others in the rail-way terminus. To do nothing to stop the killing, orto intervene nonviolently in a way that has nopossibility for transforming the killing situation, isnot only ineffective but also makes you complicitwith the perpetuation of the ongoing killings. Inshort, such a violent response, even if it involvesnecessary killing, may be justified by the idealsand values of a nonviolent society since suchkilling may be the most nonviolent option avail-able.

Such an approach to nonviolence, whichallows for killings in exceptional situations, opensthe door to all kinds of dangers from dominantkilling societies. After all, we easily recall theendless justifications for killing and other forms ofviolence, that repeatedly use the same kind oflanguage, including war and violence as necessary

for peace and nonvi-olence. Once wegrant killing excep-tions, how do weavoid the slipperyslope of killing? Howdo we distinguishour nonkillingapproach from justwar theories, reli-gious teachings,political theories,and other justifica-tions found for thou-sands of years to thepresent in killingsocieties? Grantingexceptions clearlyposes a challengeand danger to anonkilling society,but not granting anyrelative contextual-ized exceptionsposes an evengreater danger tocreating a relevantnonkilling world.

Let me only briefly suggest how we may distin-guish our nonviolent approach from the justifica-tions for killing in killing societies. In thoseexceptional situations, with extreme violence andkilling taking place and with no nonkilling andnonviolent options available, violent and some-times even killing actions are allowed and may benecessary to stop the killing and the violence.However, we never give up the nonviolent idealsand values of creating nonkilling societies. Whenwe engage in such necessary killing, what we do isnot glorious. It is not even good or moral. It issomething tragic and terrible. We should besaddened by what we have had to do in respond-ing to situations that express human failure increating killing societies that sometimes offer nononkilling effective means of actions.

Since we always uphold the ideals and valuesof nonviolence and nonkilling, even when suchexceptional violence and killing are necessary, weengage in killing that is of the most limited dura-tion and intensity necessary tostop the ongoing killing. Werestrict to a minimum theviolence and loss of life, and werefuse all contemporary justifi-cations for killings as “collateraldamage.” Most importantly, wedo everything in our power totransform the economic, politi-cal, cultural, educational, reli-gious, and other causes andconditions that led to our killingsocieties and such tragic failuresin which we have no immediatenonkilling alternatives. Weexpose and resist all attempts touse the killing to justify morekilling, terror and terrorism to

justify our responses of terror and terrorism,violence to justify more violence, so that we donot become entrapped in the cycles definingviolent and killing societies.

Only by raising qualitatively different,nonkilling and nonviolent alternative values,while educating, resisting, and transforming, canwe break through the vicious cycles of killing andviolence. Only then can we create nonkillingsocieties expressing nonkilling life-affirming andsustainable relations between human beings,other beings, and nature. Only then can weembrace a contextually meaningful and effectiveapproach expressing the presuppositions, values,principles, policies, and paradigms of nonkillingand nonviolent societies.

—Doug Allen

Nonkilling(continued from Page 7)

BRADLEY (CHELSEA) MANNING AND EDWARD SNOWDEN:AMERICAN HEROES

Fall 2013 Page 9

From the beginning, US foreign policy hasbeen predicated on conquest and whateverlevels of violence were required to achieve

it. Beneath the rhetoric of freedom lies a horrify-ing legacy of invasions, coups, proxy wars andsupport for a rogue’s gallery of despots. With all ofthat, however, the violence and lawlessness of theBush-Obama years is of a scale few if any of ushave ever seen.

It is in this context that the state has comedown so heavily on Bradley (Chelsea) Manningand is determined to do the same to EdwardSnowden. With the ruling class here essentially atwar with the world, including with the Americanpeople, anyone who exposes the workings ofempire as Manning and Snowden have is deemeda traitor. Such revelations cannot be tolerated,

after all, because the emperors must be free firstand foremost to do as they like.

Meanwhile, much of the world’s population isaghast at what the United States has become. Wecan imagine that even in places that havesuffered most hideously from US aggression,people can barely believe what they see. Probablynever in its history has the United States been soisolated; what may be worse is that there is littledissent among elites as to whether this might notbe a good thing.

Amidst the hysterical cries of “Traitor,” whatManning revealed first and foremost were warcrimes. Rather than being jailed, tortured anddemonized, let alone possibly imprisoned for therest of his life, he should be thanked for savingmany lives - Afghans, Pakistanis and Yemeniswho might otherwise have been blown up by USbombs and American soldiers who otherwisewould have recklessly been put in harm’s way.Perhaps the only thing more horrifying than reve-lations like the Collateral Murder video is the factthat such acts, like the My Lai Massacre inVietnam, are standard operating procedure andnot exceptions.

Similarly, Edward Snowden revealed theextent to which the US empire regards the rest of

the world as enemies who must be monitored atall times. One of the most telling moments ofManning’s show trial was when the prosecutionreferred to WikiLeaks and, by inference,Manning and Snowden, as “an intelligenceagency for the public.” As they are and, given thestate of things, as they should be; and for that weshould all be grateful.

Despite elite vilification of Manning andSnowden, important fissures between the rulersand the ruled have become apparent. We see, forexample, that a majority of Americans believe theNational Security Agency should be reined inbig-time. We see as well serious outrage in bothparties in both houses of Congress at how exten-sive the surveillance state has become. No suchoutrage or calls for drastic changes would be

happening were it not forSnowden.

Manning andSnowden have beencompared to DanielEllsberg, the man who, in1971, revealed secretdocuments about the USwar in Indochina.Though the PentagonPapers undoubtedlyincreased the alreadymassive public opposi-tion to the war, that wasarguably not Ellsberg’smost important achieve-ment. Perhaps moresignificant was the reve-lation of large-scale lyingabout the war. That

Kennedy, McNamara, Johnson andWestmoreland (and later Nixon and Kissinger)had known that the war was essentiallyunwinnable short of nuclear weapons, even asthey rained terror down on three countries (“Killeverything that moves”) and sent tens of thou-sand of Americans to senseless deaths, was almostas terrible a truth as the real nature of the waritself.

One result of thePentagon Papers isthat millions ofAmericans assumethat those in chargeregularly lie. And forgood reason, for at thesame time, for exam-ple, that Jimmy Carterspoke piously ofhuman rights, he wasmaking possibleIndonesian terroragainst East Timor;that when RonaldReagan was rhapsodiz-ing about what a greatguy Efrain Rios Montt

was, he was arming, funding and covering upMontt’s murderous campaign againstGuatemalan civilians; that when Colin Powelland the rest of the Bush II gang cited weapons ofmass destruction to justify an illegal invasion thathas claimed more than a million Iraqi lives, theyhad documentary evidence in their possessionthat proved no such weapons existed. As recentlyas last month, Secretary of State John Kerrydeclared that there “is no military solution inSyria” even as the US supplies arms to those fight-ing the Assad regime, many of whom are allegedto be linked to al-Qaeda. And would anyone bethe least bit surprised if the recent terror alert wasconcocted to undermine the popular uproar overManning and Snowden’s revelations?

Implicitly, Manning and Snowden, likeEllsberg, also put the disgraceful role of the corpo-rate media in the public eye. Reporters, editorsand publishers have often been privy to US warcrimes that they keep secret because of theirenthusiasm for empire, then howl with outragewhen such crimes are revealed – not at the crimesor criminals but at those who unmask them.

Manning and Snowden carry forward the greattradition of David Walker, Debs, Thoreau, EmmaGoldman, Diane Nash, Cesar Chavez, ReverendKing, the Berrigans and all those who have defiedillegitimate authority at great risk to themselves.The question now is whether the rest of us shallfollow their lead or instead be like Good Germansand pretend not to see the evil that surrounds us.The ruling class’s ability to terrorize whoever theywant wherever they want whenever they wantwithout having to answer or be accountable toanyone is the crux of empire. Increased levels ofresistance, especially of soldiers like Manning, isthe only antidote.

—Andy Piascik

Andy Piascik was an active member of MPAC from1976–79. He has remained an activist since and isalso an award-winning author who writes for ZMagazine, The Indypendent, Counterpunch andmany other publications and websites. He can bereached at andypiascik@yahoo.com.

DECONSTRUCTING DRONES

Page 10 MPAC Newsletter

Unmanned aerial vehicles(UAVs) – better known as“drones” – and their use as

weapons by the United States hasbeen the subject of much debate forthe past few years. However, Octoberof 2013 brought fresh criticism oftheir use by three established organi-zations: Amnesty International,Human Rights Watch, and theUnited Nations. In response, theObama administration has vigorouslydefended the use of drone strikes.“U.S. counterterrorism actions areprecise, they are lawful, and they areeffective,” said White House presssecretary Jay Carney, adding “I thinkit’s important to note that by narrowlytargeting our action against thosewho want to kill us and not the people they hideamong, we are choosing the course of action leastlikely to result in the loss of innocent life.”

Just as Carney insists that the terrorists hidebehind innocent civilians, those in power alwayshave their rhetoric to hide behind when they arein the public eye. In the case of drones, they are“least likely to result in the loss of innocent life.”They are “precise,” “lawful” and “effective.” Theyare used for “counterterrorism” against people“who want to kill us.” A host of other clevercatch-phrases are utilized in the name of justify-ing them to the public, but Carney’s statementshere are useful because they reveal the key argu-ments that have been used to justify dronestrikes, ones that have also been used to justifymany other aspects of U.S. foreign policy. Whenwe begin to deconstruct them, we can see thatthey are based neither on the truth nor elemen-tary principles of morality.

Drones are “Lawful”

While the Obama administration hasardently defended the legality of U.S.

drone strikes, others have challenged this, onboth grounds of international law and the U.S.Constitution. International human rights organi-zations like Amnesty International and HumanRights Watch have focused on international law,utilizing it as a basis for strong condemnations ofthe many drone strikes which have resulted in thedeaths and suffering of innocent civilians. Citinga rather egregious case in Pakistan in which agrandmother was killed as she gathered vegeta-bles, Amnesty expressed that they have “seriousconcerns that this attack violated the prohibitionof the arbitrary deprivation of life and may consti-tute war crimes or extrajudicial executions.”Human Rights Watch was more explicit: theycited two incidences of drone attacks in Yementhat they said “killed civilians indiscriminately inclear violations of the laws of war.”

The United Nations has also utilized interna-tional law for its criticisms of U.S. drone strikes.In UN meetings during October of 2013, UN

special rapporteur Ben Emmerson suggested thatthere have been thirty-three strikes that havebeen known to kill civilians, and these may havebeen in violation of international law.Ambassadors from Brazil, China and Venezuelaalso questioned the legality of U.S. drone strikesduring General Assembly meetings.

Domestic organizations like the AmericanCivil Liberties Union have challenged U.S. dronestrikes on their constitutionality, primarilybecause they have been used to kill fourAmerican citizens overseas. In 2012, they filed alawsuit against the U.S. government to contestthe constitutionality of the killing of threeAmerican citizens:Anwar Al-Aulaqi, SamirKhan, and AbdulrahmanAl-Aulaqi, Anwar’ssixteen-year-old son.They based their argu-ment on the groundsthat they were deprivedof their life without dueprocess, which is guaran-teed by the FifthAmendment.

Due process is guar-anteed both by interna-tional and constitutionallaw, which is extremelyimportant in protectingindividuals from theviolent actions of theState and is at the heartof the unlawfulness ofU.S. drone strikes. Whatit means is that the Statecannot simply executeyou or harm you simply “because;” they have topresent evidence against you and allow you todefend yourself through a fair trial. It is a basicprinciple of justice that dates back to The MagnaCarta, and the Obama administration’s rationali-zations have flagrantly violated these. Essentiallythey have claimed that due process is afforded tothe people whom they decide to kill with drones

because a few different people withinthe executive branch decide it is okay.Kings and tyrants would love this – nooversight from other branches ofgovernment or citizens needed.

The lawfulness of U.S. dronestrikes is at best highly questionable,and if we care about basic principles ofjustice and law that are needed toprotect us from the violence of theState, then we need to challenge ourgovernment’s justifications for them.However, while the legal argument isimportant, we cannot stop there. Wemust also deconstruct drones from amoral perspective, challenging theargument that they are “precise” anddo not harm civilians.

Drones are “Precise”

During an online forum with YouTube andGoogle during January of 2012, President

Obama was very explicit about the “precision” ofU.S. drone strikes: “For the most part, they havebeen very precise, precision against al-Qaeda andtheir affiliates. And we are very careful in terms ofhow it’s been applied.” The precision argumenthas wooed the establishment press. In a 2012 arti-cle, “What’s Not Wrong with Drones?” RosaBrooks of Foreign Policy magazine explains that“Drones actually permit far greater precision intargeting. Today's unmanned aerial vehicles(UAVs) can carry small bombs that do less wide-

spread damage, and there's no human pilot whosefatigue might limit flight time. Their low profileand relative fuel efficiency combines with this topermit them to spend more ‘time on target’ thanany manned aircraft.” Similarly, in another 2012article for the Times, Scott Shane tells us thatdrones can offer us the “promise of precision

See Drones on Page 11

Fall 2013 Page 11

killing;” such precision led him to title his article“The Moral Case for Drones.”

These claims are confounded by the adminis-tration’s policy of referring to “all military-agemales” in an area with “known terrorist activity”to be enemy combatants, and thus they are notcounted as civilians in drone strikes. This raisesobvious questions of legitimacy, given that “mili-tary-age” is ambiguous and that people are beingkilled without certainty of who they are andwhether or not they pose an actual threat to theU.S.

The precision argument has been furthercontrasted by victim’s testimonials compiled bylivingunderdrones.org, in-depth reports by theBureau for Investigative Journalism, and studiesdone within the U.S. military. The Center forNaval Analyses, a research institution funded bythe U.S. Navy and Marines, conducted a study ofdrone strikes in Afghanistan during 2010-11 thatrevealed that civilians are ten times as likely todie in drone strikes as from conventional fighterjets. When even those within the U.S. estab-lishment are questioning the precision ofdrone strikes, this should immediately raiseskepticism of the official rhetoric.

The Obama administration has utilized thefactor of “modern technology” in trying tojustify the precision of U.S. drone strikes, butdespite their technological capabilities, theystill have resulted in the deaths of innocentcivilians. In fact, they may be more harmful tocivilians than conventional warfare, so if wewant to talk about morality, then we cannotaccept them as legitimate. Yet is the answer,then, to return to using fighter jets to bombpeople, or to improve upon the technology ofdrones to make them less likely to kill civilians?We have to move beyond such discussion, for it istoo narrow and leaves out important moral ques-tions that get at the heart of what is wrong withU.S. drone strikes.

Drones are “Effective”

Determining whether or not drones are “effec-tive” or not depends upon how we define

effective. From the perspective of the U.S.government and the subservient establishmentmedia, drones are effective because they arekilling terrorists who are trying to harm the U.S.There are other ways to define effective that weneed to consider, yet first it must be stressed thateven within this framework drones are ineffec-tive.

Rather than preventing terrorism, drones arefueling terrorism. Malala Yousafzai, a sixteen-yearold Pakistani activist, said just this in a meetingwith President Obama in October of 2013,expressing that “drone attacks are fueling terror-ism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, andthey lead to resentment among the Pakistanipeople.” Ibrahim Mothana, a former Yemeniactivist, repeated such a sentiment for the peopleof Yemen who have been affected by drones:

“Rather than winning the hearts and minds ofYemeni civilians, America is alienating them bykilling their relatives and friends. Indeed, thedrone program is leading to the Talibanization ofvast tribal areas and the radicalization of peoplewho could otherwise be America’s allies in thefight against terrorism in Yemen.”

What those who support drones and otherviolent actions of U.S. foreign policy forget is thevery simple yet indispensable truth that violencebegets violence, terror begets terror, terrorismbegets terrorism. The U.S. drone attacks are actsof incredible violence and they are terrorizing thepeople in the countries where they are beingused. Drone strikes are not preventing terrorism,they are terrorism, and we cannot hope to over-come terrorism by using terrorism to do so. To saythat we can speaks to either an incredible igno-rance or an incredible indifference to those whohave been suffering immensely from drone strikesand other violent acts of U.S. foreign policy.

On a deeper—and what I see to be moreimportant—moral level, U.S. drone strikes arenot only ineffective within the context of coun-

terterrorism, they are ineffective because they areviolations of elementary principles of morality.

This is true on two levels. First, a very basicmoral principle is being truthful and not hypocrit-ical. However, that the U.S. can and should beable to go anywhere it wants to in the world anduse violence to further its political and economicinterests (really the interests of the wealthy few,not the majority of U.S. citizens), is an assump-tion that goes unquestioned by the architects ofU.S. foreign policy and the establishment media,as is the assumption that any person, organiza-tions or nation that challenges these interestsshould be punished through verbal slander,economic sanctions or military force. These oftenunchallenged assumptions are examples of theincredibly arrogant hypocrisy that is so central toU.S. foreign policy, and drone strikes are a primeexample of this hypocrisy. As such, the U.S. hasno moral authority to use drone strikes or itsmany other actions of violence.

Second, drone strikes are immoral simplybecause they are actions of violence that causeunnecessary death and suffering and deny peopletheir inherent right as a human being to life,dignity and self-determination. Such moraltruisms often never even enter into the conversa-tion in the discussion about drone strikes, which

is limited to their legality, whether or not thetechnology is “precise” enough or whether or notthey are effective at stopping terrorism. Inconstructing an argument against drone strikes,such issues have to be deconstructed, yet we haveto do more than this. At the heart of dronestrikes, and at the heart of U.S. foreign policy, is ashameful disregard for these basic principles ofmorality. Too often they have been torn to shredsin “the ends justify the means” arguments, butwhen we deconstruct drones and other actions ofU.S. foreign policy, we realize that the means areincredibly violent and the ends are often uncer-tain and are not what we are told they would be.Thus, if we want to live in a more humane andjust world, we cannot be so willing to sacrificethese basic principles of morality for such ends.

Rethinking Dronesand U.S. Foreign Policy

U.S. drone strikes are extremely violent, harm-ful and unnecessary, but they are sadly not

an anomaly to U.S. foreign policy. They aremerely part of the bigger picture of militarism andimperialism that are at its core, one piece of the

shameful puzzle. Other actions of violence,such as the many wars into which we havebeen unnecessarily plunged, the stockpiling ofnuclear weapons, or the funding of brutal andrepressive dictatorships, all come together notto advance lawfulness, human dignity or secu-rity, but to advance U.S. political andeconomic hegemony.

Our task, then, as citizens who care aboutworking for a more just and peaceful world, isto learn to take our blinders off so that we canbe critical and skeptical of the rhetoric of thosein power. We need to organize and to challenge

them to uphold basic principles of law, justice andhuman dignity.

Most of all, though, we need to step outside ofthe narrow framework under which we too oftenoperate when thinking about these things. Weneed to think beyond criticizing U.S. dronestrikes and other actions of U.S. foreign policybased upon their lawfulness, or try to think thattechnological advances in drones or other mech-anisms of war can be made to make them “moreprecise” and less likely to kill innocent civilians.We need to think beyond trying to establish athreshold of how many innocent people there canbe to be killed before it becomes unacceptable.We need to say that no matter what the law says,or how it can be interpreted, that it is wrong tokill innocent people. We need to say that warcannot be sanitized, and no technologicaladvancements will make it something worth-while. We need to say that the death of even oneinnocent civilian is not worth the ends, especiallygiven that the ends told to us by our politicalleaders are not truthful. As the late historianHoward Zinn said, “In war, innocent peoplealways die. So either we have to accept that, orwe have to put an end to war.” I think that it istime that we call for such a thing.

—Eric Collins

Drones(continued from Page 10)

Vol

ume

39, N

umbe

r 1

Fall

2013

Mai

ne P

eace

Act

ion

Com

mit

tee

NE

WS

LE

TTE

R

Mai

ne D

rone

Pea

cew

alk,

Oct

. 13,

201

3, B

ango

r(P

hoto

by

Rick

Tar

diff)

Con

trib

utor

s

Dan

Whi

teH

ilary

War

ner-

Evan

sC

at F

letc

her

Dan

Sho

rett

eBe

verly

Ste

ssel

Rob

ert

Stes

sel

Dou

g A

llen

And

y Pi

asci

kEr

ic C

ollin

sIlz

e Pe

ters

ons

MA

INE

PE

AC

E A

CTI

ON

CO

MM

ITTE

EP

RS

RT

STD

Mem

oria

l Uni

onU

.S. P

OS

TAG

E P

AID

Uni

vers

ity o

f Mai

neO

RO

NO

, ME

044

73O

rono

, ME

044

69 (

Cha

nge

Ser

vice

Req

uest

ed)

PE

RM

IT N

O. 3

4

Fund

ed in

par

t by

Uni

vers

ity o

f Mai

neSt

uden

t Gov

ernm

ent

Publ

icat

ion

serv

ices

by

Eric

T. O

lson

We

trus

t th

at y

ou h

ave

enjo

yed

read

ing

past

issu

es o

f the

MPA

C N

ewsle

tter.

If yo

u ha

ve n

ot r

enew

edyo

ur s

ubsc

riptio

n or

hav

e no

t m

ade

a co

ntrib

utio

n to

MPA

C d

urin

g th

e pa

st y

ear,

plea

se r

etur

n th

efo

llow

ing

form

to

us. (

Plea

se m

ake

chec

ks p

ayab

le t

o M

aine

Pea

ce A

ctio

n C

omm

ittee

.):

Yes!

I’d li

ke t

o co

ntin

ue t

o re

ceiv

e th

e M

PAC

New

slette

r!

qH

ere’

s $5

.00

for

my

annu

al s

ubsc

riptio

n.

qH

ere’

s an

ext

ra c

ontr

ibut

ion

to h

elp

pay

for

the

New

slette

r. $

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.

qI’m

sho

rt o

n ca

sh n

ow, b

ut p

leas

e ke

ep m

e on

you

r m

ailin

g lis

t.

Nam

e:...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

..

Mai

ling

addr

ess:

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

Tow

n/St

ate/

Zip:

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.

Plea

se re

turn

to:

Mai

ne P

eace

Act

ion

Com

mitt

ee, M

emor

ial U

nion

, Uni

vers

ity o

f Mai

ne, O

rono

, ME

044

69

!

Opi

nion

s ex

pres

sed

in t

his

New

slett

er a

re t

hose

of

indi

vidu

al m

embe

rs o

f MPA

C a

nd o

ther

uni

vers

ityan

d co

mm

unit

y ac

tivi

sts.

T

hey

do

not

nece

ssar

ilyex

pres

s th

e vi

ews

of o

ther

MPA

C m

embe

rs o

r of

the

grou

p as

a w

hole

. We

know

tha

t ot

her

read

ers

may

not

agre

e w

ith a

ll th

at is

stat

ed in

this

issue

, and

we

enco

ur-

age

your

res

pons

e.

The

Mai

ne P

eace

Act

ion

Com

mitt

ee h

as it

s ge

nera

lm

eetin

g ev

ery

Wed

nesd

ays

at 3

:00

PMin

the

Virt

ueR

oom

of

The

Map

les

Build

ing

on t

he U

nive

rsity

of

Mai

ne c

ampu

s. M

eetin

g tim

es a

nd d

ates

may

cha

nge.

MPA

C o

ften

has

sub

com

mitt

ees

wor

king

on

topi

cs o

fsp

ecia

l int

eres

t to

cur

rent

mem

bers

. MPA

C a

lso

orga

n-iz

es fi

lm se

ries,

spea

kers

, tea

ch-in

s, w

orks

hops

, con

cert

s,re

adin

g gr

oups

, de

mon

stra

tions

, an

d ot

her

peac

e an

dju

stic

e ac

tions

. Fo

r m

ore

info

rmat

ion

on M

PAC

, ca

ll58

1-38

60. I

f you

are

inte

rest

ed in

pea

ce e

duca

tion

and

activ

ism, p

leas

e jo

in u

s.ht

tp://

ww

w.um

aine

.edu

/mpa

c/