2015
DOI: 10.1080/21624887.2015.1005422
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Drone warfare and the making of bodies out of place

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Government and military spokespeople in these countries refer to drones as precise weapons that manage to accurately identify and kill insurgents while leaving civilians in targeted areas largely unscathed. However, research from nongovernment organizations (NGOs), independent monitoring groups, journalists, and academics has challenged this official narrative, revealing that drone violence has inflicted significantly greater harm on civilians than official statements by government and military spokespeople would lead their citizens to believe (Amnesty International, ; Benjamin, ; Enemark, ; Feroz, , ; Gregory, ; Open Society Foundations, ; Reprieve, , ; Shaw, ; Shaw & Akhter, ; Stanford Law School/NYU School of Law, ; Wilcox, ; Woods, , ). These harms are both physical and psychosocial and go largely unacknowledged by U.S.‐led coalition governments and military officials.…”
Section: Limitations Of Existing Scholarshipmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Government and military spokespeople in these countries refer to drones as precise weapons that manage to accurately identify and kill insurgents while leaving civilians in targeted areas largely unscathed. However, research from nongovernment organizations (NGOs), independent monitoring groups, journalists, and academics has challenged this official narrative, revealing that drone violence has inflicted significantly greater harm on civilians than official statements by government and military spokespeople would lead their citizens to believe (Amnesty International, ; Benjamin, ; Enemark, ; Feroz, , ; Gregory, ; Open Society Foundations, ; Reprieve, , ; Shaw, ; Shaw & Akhter, ; Stanford Law School/NYU School of Law, ; Wilcox, ; Woods, , ). These harms are both physical and psychosocial and go largely unacknowledged by U.S.‐led coalition governments and military officials.…”
Section: Limitations Of Existing Scholarshipmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lack of concern for lived experiences is also characteristic of the majority of drone violence scholarship in IR, which has focussed on drone violence's effects on nation‐state sovereignty, international law, and developments in military technologies. Even feminist and postcolonial IR scholars, who have been concerned with the people on the receiving end of drone attacks (Gregory, ; Holmqvist, ; McSorley, ; Shaw & Akhter, ; Wilcox, ), have not yet brought sufficient attention to the wide range of psychosocial harms that drone violence inflicts. The reasons for this are manifold and specific to drone violence, so require unpacking.…”
Section: Limitations Of Existing Scholarshipmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From the combinatoric manipulation of these various anonymous and ‘dividualized’ traces of communication, geolocation and activity, an archive of overall ‘patterns of life’ can be derived (indicating bodily movements and rhythms in space and time, gatherings of bodies, networks of speech and chatter, durational intensities of social connectivity and so on). The interrogation of this multidimensional data topography is then conducted via algorithmic inquiry, including forms of social network analysis, time series analysis and rhythmanalysis, with the hermeneutic goal of identifying patterns of suspicion and anomalies linked to particular networked nodes and ‘bodies out of place’ (Wilcox, 2015). Via ‘cross-sensor cueing’ (Chatterjee and Stork, 2017), emergent targets may also become subject to further granular and more intense visual surveillance, including full-motion video feeds which are watched by drone personnel and ultimately inform the triggering of strikes.…”
Section: Predatory Warmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This type of security rationale assumes that everyone is potentially dangerous until proven otherwise (this is why everyone has to go through a metal detector before entering a government building or boarding a flight) (Elias, 2014). Importantly for us here, the fact that less attention is given by scholarly critique to this type of security suggests these critiques accept the claim that this mode of security is less discriminatory (Aradau & Van Munster, 2007;Bigo, 2006Bigo, , 2007Wilcox, 2015). The fullbody scanner at the focus of this article is predominantly a uniform-risk based technology, and our argument should be read as pertaining to this particular field of security.…”
Section: Demarcating the Terms: Securitymentioning
confidence: 99%