Ex-drone technician who assisted to find 121,000 targets says “we can’t continue to fight a war on terror with more terror and expect to win”

The United States drone warfare has claimed the lives of 9,469 people across Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen according to the bureau of investigative journalism. The programme is shrouded in secrecy, but recent whistleblowing has enabled the world to view drones from an insider’s lens.

Lisa Ling, an ex- US Air Force Technician Sergeant operated the most vital component of the US drone programme - without which a drone would be an empty shell. An intelligence collection system used to collate and disseminate intel in real time across multiple theatres for targeted killings. The system is known as the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) or otherwise the SENTINEL weapon system. After 14 years in the US military, first as a medic, then a nurse. Lisa's last deployment was with Air National Guard (ANG) where she was assigned on the 234th Intelligence Squadron and then to the 48th Intelligence Squadron at Beale Air Force Base from October 2007 to September 2009 - she was honourably discharged in 2012.

Lisa is one of three whistle-blowers featured in the National Bird documentary, critiquing the drone programme after a personal visit to Afghanistan.

San Francisco, 30 Dec 2016 (Lisa Ling)

KD: Whilst operating the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS), I noticed that you were given an award for assisting to find 121,000 targets that will eventually be put on a kill list or be killed. Can you tell me your thoughts on the accuracy of this data? And comment on the moral and ethical elements of targeting based on this data. Are you personally confident that the DCGS is capable of understanding who is a combatant and non-combatant?

Lisa Ling: I have no way of knowing what happened to the 121,000 “targets”.

I do not believe that technology can replace human intelligence. I do not believe it is moral, or ethical to use technology to be the arbiter of any life or death decisions. I do not believe anything short of boots on the ground can offer real situational awareness. Human beings are not that simple, neither is a culture that has been around thousands of years longer than my own. It is not public information on what defines an enemy combatant, it should be. People in these countries wear similar culturally appropriate clothing whether a law enforcement official, a government official, a father, mother, or perhaps a terrorist. That being said, I do not know how anyone can ever be certain whom we were striking. Many people in these countries do not know their birthday or other identifiers familiar to us in the west. How can we really know?

KD: Have you had any interaction with British drones?

Lisa Ling: No, not personally while I was in the drone program. As I understand it, both act autonomously. That is not to say they do not share data, it is public knowledge that 5 eyes shares data.

KD: US legal advisers have argued that targeted drone strikes or personality strikes are highly accurate - can you comment on the accuracy of drone strikes from your experience?

Lisa Ling: When firing a laser, the missile will accurately hit where the laser is pointing; that is not the important concept. The thing to pay attention to is the way “targets” are chosen. That specific information has not been made public and I believe it should be, at least in a general way. Without that information, oversight of this immense system of killing is not possible. Meaningful public discourse surrounding it is also not possible. So the weapons accuracy when hitting a target is irrelevant when what defines a target isn’t clear.

KD: Do you think drone warfare is lowering the threshold for the use of force or the resort to war?

Lisa Ling: I believe as General Hayden has said, this may make war too easy. At the political level it is an opportunity to do something and be seen as doing something without committing the political capital of putting Americans at risk. Americans working in all aspects of the program certainly are at risk, but the public is unaware of that risk.

KD: From your experience, what are the moral and ethical implications of drone warfare?

Lisa Ling: When kinetic strikes are a more palatable or politically expedient option than diplomacy, or capturing a suspected terrorist than that has obvious ethical and moral implications. In the United States the bar for assessing guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt. The bar for a strike is not as evident – it is shrouded in secrecy thereby making real oversight or public discourse impossible. In my view, this is a problem; it is especially a problem in places like Yemen where we are not officially at war. A stealth drone [autonomous drone] that requires no human intervention to acquire and kill targets is close to prime time. Stealth technology is for the developed world; places like the United States or Great Britain, not to be used in places like Afghanistan or Yemen. There are those of us who would think differently if this means of killing were to come here to the U.S. inevitably hunting and killing those we love. I think most Americans would not feel safe if those responsible for doing the hunting and killing were able to do so completely without any real oversight. I think that bearing this in mind, the ethical questions become abundantly more apparent to the general public. I personally think that this is a sad situation for the west; I believe compassion should extend to all people, not just those in what we call the “Global West”.

I also want to make clear that for those living under drones, as it would be true if we were the ones living under drones, that it is terror plain and simple. To have an aircraft overhead for extended periods that could fire missiles or drop bombs at any time, on anyone, killing or maiming yourself or those you love is terrifying. Imagine being in that place where no one is immune, students, doctors, infants, mothers, grandmothers, fathers, brothers, children, soccer players and perhaps terrorists have all been victims of strikes. This living under armed drones will have an adverse impact for many generations. We can’t continue to fight a war on terror with more terror and expect to win. If there is no direct or immediate threat, proportionality is our legal obligation as I understand it.