US Predator/Reaper UCAV attacks in Northern Pakistan

Be like Nutella

The stats seem to be something like this:

The US has carried out 300-400 drone attacks using Predator MQ-1 and Reaper MQ-9 UCAV's since June 2004 killing somewhere between 1500 and 3000 people, some of which were Al Qaeda and Taliban (and some other smaller terrorist orgs) and some were Innocent Civilians, women, Children etc..

I don't think it's justified what do you think?

The US have their legal arguments and the UN seem to disagree. Many reports have been carried out by various think tanks and groups. Most if not the vast majority of the drone attacks have happened under Obama's watch.

From a military perspective I find it hard to rationalise because in my view the 'Collateral' damage creates more terrorists.

In one instance there were 80 blown up in an attack which got one low level terrorist...

I know currently this whole thing has blown up between Pakistan and the US with the US withholding some aid and the Pakistani’s threatening to shoot UCAV's down etc.. but this has been going on for 6/7 years so I'm just wondering what people’s opinions are about this targeted killing campaign using Predator's operated from as far away as Langley going off intelligence as weak as: location and observed behaviour = Designate as target = Hellfire Missile up the ass!

IMO it's not being discussed enough out there.

The consensus is that possibly around 350-600 innocent civilians women and children have been blown up and another 1000-1500 left injured.

Manic Moran

I believe you'll find that the political aspect of the drone strikes are getting plenty of coverage over on the politics forum.

From the military perspective, they're one of the more appropriate tools for killing people in otherwise inaccessible places.

As for "as weak as location and observed behaviour", that's one of the most common methods used for identifying targets. For example, being in IED alley, and digging a series of holes by the side of the road into which one is placing devices is going to count as 'location and observed behaviour' which, as you eloquently put it, will result in a 'hellfire up the ass' (Though in our case, we went with a 500lb bomb and a few 155mm shells.)

NTM

Be like Nutella

so are you saying that this is not appropriate to the Military forum? I would have thought it disserved as much military perspective as it does political/international relations? I think the question of effectiveness and legality would come under both sections.

The Reaper can carry 500 lb GPS guided JDAMs but the Predator only carries Hellfires (at $70,000 a pop)... The vast majority of strikes have been done with Predators as the Reaper only came into use in the last year or so. If they had used 500 lb bombs from the Reaper all along we'd be looking at thousands more casualties.

this site itemises each strike with media sources http://pakistanbodycount.org/drone_attack

The Strikes seem to create more terrorism within Pakistan.. if you look at this graph which shows drone attack dates verses suicide attacks... they seem to mirror each other too often to think there's no correlation which brings up the effectiveness issue.
http://pakistanbodycount.org/drone_attack

It seems militants punish the Pakistan military for allowing the US strikes to continue.

I'm saying the strikes are illegal and disproportionate and that the US would not and can't engage these militants on the ground... so they use the UCAV option even though it is illegal....just because they have that option...and the fact that no US lives are put at risk during a strike.. that the US public don't mind or know too much about it... and for that matter either does the rest of the world in that the media have not( can't in a lot of cases) reported too much on this situation.
If there were no predators these strikes wouldn't have occurred either from planes or from the ground so it seems that just because the military tech advanced so much that the US is engaged in an amoral act of cowardice which it would not otherwise have engaged in without the tech (UCAV's).
Of course there is a complex political side to this situation involving US aid to Pakistan...the power of the military within Pakistan... terrorist connections within the ISI Intelligence wing of the Pakistani Military etc.. but that's not why I posted here... I think if you look at the attacks statistically, legally and from a military perspective (i.e. how much actual damage have the strikes done to the threat AQ or Taliban pose to American interests at home or in Afghanistan?) then the military effectiveness of this campaign comes into question... IF... the original military objective was to: reduce the threat of terrorism AND to weaken the chance of the hiding Taliban in Waziristan to regain power or plan and execute IED and suicide attacks within Afghanistan.

OS119

Be like Nutella wrote: »

...I'm saying the strikes are illegal and disproportionate...

why do you think they are illegal?

proper answer, not 'i don't like them, so they are illiegal' or 'some bloke who sounds important thinks they are illegal'.

Manic Moran

so are you saying that this is not appropriate to the Military forum? I would have thought it disserved as much military perspective as it does political/international relations? I think the question of effectiveness and legality would come under both sections.

If you wish to discuss the issue of disagreeing with it as a political matter, then yes. Such arguments are common and rarely productive. If you wish to focus on the practical merits or legality, then that's a different issue, and please go on and make your arguments here.

Personally, they seem to be one of the more practical methods of killing people who are otherwise inaccessible.

NTM

xflyer

If there were no predators these strikes wouldn't have occurred either from planes or from the ground so it seems that just because the military tech advanced so much that the US is engaged in an amoral act of cowardice which it would not otherwise have engaged in without the tech (UCAV's).

Cowardice? As opposed to planting a IED somewhere and letting the next person passing that way get blown to pieces?

By your definition any military advance would be an act of cowardice going right back to the bow and arrow which is a guided stand off weapon. In fact when the crossbow was invented, Crossbowmen were considered cowards and summarily executed by people with attitudes like yours. Is the use of artillery, aircraft, rifles, mortars, or any other stand off weapon 'an amoral act of cowardice'. Should we go back to swords and stick, no rocks or spears because as throwing weapons they would be an amoral act of cowardice?

Really you don't have a cogent argument against the use of the Predator. It's just another weapon in the arsenal. Any questions of morality in it's use is simply another aspect of the morality of war in general.

What would you rather they do, drop special forces in armed with bayonets to close with enemy and cut their throats after checking their id?

Be like Nutella

xflyer wrote: »

Cowardice? As opposed to planting a IED somewhere and letting the next person passing that way get blown to pieces?

By your definition any military advance would be an act of cowardice going right back to the bow and arrow which is a guided stand off weapon. In fact when the crossbow was invented, Crossbowmen were considered cowards and summarily executed by people with attitudes like yours. Is the use of artillery, aircraft, rifles, mortars, or any other stand off weapon 'an amoral act of cowardice'. Should we go back to swords and stick, no rocks or spears because as throwing weapons they would be an amoral act of cowardice?

Really you don't have a cogent argument against the use of the Predator. It's just another weapon in the arsenal. Any questions of morality in it's use is simply another aspect of the morality of war in general.

What would you rather they do, drop special forces in armed with bayonets to close with enemy and cut their throats after checking their id?

Ok, I take your point and I know what you mean... I agree you use the best weapon system available and the Predator and Reaper are amazing weapons and seriously effective. But you went off on a mad one tbh... I obviously was not sayin anything like you're implying and the rest of your post is farsical and just going off on one...while quite funny.

Ok, first off I wasn't posting to start an argument for the sake of arguing and seeing who's better at 'military talk' ... I was simply raising the topic of this particular military campaign here to see what military minded people think about the rationality and effectiveness of these drone strikes which have been going on now 7 years, on average every 3 or 4 days and which have killed hundreds of innocent people along with some of the desired militants.

I don't think it's possible to consider real life military situations without considering the morality of those situations or the international legal framework within which military operations are 'supposed' to operate within... especially from the leading western nation of the USA.

It's easy to consider weapons systems like this and just say; well did they kill people effectively in the given terrain? yes? well then they work so why not use them?

I don't doubt that the Reaper MQ-9 is a monumental paradigm shifting piece of kit unmatched by any nation on any battlefield... in fact I'm a little obsessed with UAV's and UCAV's and have been learning about them for years now.

What I'm saying is that

a) As far as achieving the set military objectives of killing the hiding Taliban who would plan attacks on American soldiers in Afghanistan and will try and return as the US pull out over the next years and
b) Reducing the threat of Al Qaeda terrorism against the US at home or abroad by killing as many of them as possible (hopefully leaders and planners)

I don't think the evidence is there to prove that these drone attacks are achieving these objectives and what’s more there is much evidence to show that they have caused an increase in terrorism within Pakistan and have created much more anti-us sentiment within an Islamic republic of 180 Million people, many of which hate the US for these drone attacks (because of the collateral damage) so much they are willing to carry out suicide attacks against the Pakistani leadership structure as a reprisal for allowing these US drone attacks to continue, hence literally having the opposite than intended effect.

The British carried out many targeted killing against many IRA guys in the 60's and 70's...it didn't have any effect apart from to create two more terrorists in their place i.e. their brother and son etc..

How can a military operation be discussed without taking into account the reasons, objectives, morality and legality said operation exists inside (or outside)

Is it usual when somebody posts a topic for discussion that you respond with,
'make your arguments here'
without firstly offering a supported opinion on the topic... or do you actually have any interest in the topic or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it... which is what it seems.

Plus, is this your total argument for not discussing the background, politics, morality, international relations aspect of this military campaign in Pakistan ?

"If you wish to discuss the issue of disagreeing with it as a political matter, then yes. Such arguments are common and rarely productive. "

This issue isn't that 'I' disagree with it... the Topic was just posted to get other people’s opinions...I've already stated mine .... opinions are just that 'subjective'...and I can support mine quite well if you want to discuss the international legality of the US drone strikes in Waziristan.

I clearly agree it's a very effective weapon and strategy... and if used correctly...correctly meaning... intelligently, legally, supported morally etc..

Clearly you have no interest in politics and that's fine... somebody said war is a continuation of politics by other means ....but reducing this complex subject involving hundreds of innocent people being bombed inside their own country who is not at war with the 'bombers' down to 'well is the weapon effective? yes? then fine' surely doesn't contain your entire opinion on this issue.

I'm simply asking a military forum what do people think of this military campaign?
do they agree it is militarily intelligent?
effective?

and seeing as ALL military operations everywhere on earth are expected by the international community and international law to operate within moral guidelines and under conventions such as the Geneva conventions (if you're signed up) do people think this campaign is the best option available and is a proportionate action?

considering all the data now known , casualty stats, which AQ leaders have been assassinated so far, the context of the 'War on Terror', the political drivers behind the campaign within the US i.e. Bush and Obama HAD and HAS to be seen to be doing something about Al Qaeda etc..

All military actions operate within a political framework, a national or international framework and the use of particular weapons systems as part of a military strategy can only be explained when you consider said strategy within the politics and international relations of that time.

I'm saying IMO that it is only because they have the capacity..i.e. Predators and Reapers.... to carry out risk free strikes from outside a nation ....that they DO these strikes... the UCAV's give them much more free reign then they would have internationally and in all aspects IF they were sending Raptors in there to bomb AQ and Taliban..... planes could be downed, pilots lost, pilots held hostage and heads cut off on YouTube etc etc.. not mentioning the fact that Pakistan would NEVER let that happen... basically the US has two big sticks.1) the drones and 2) the Billions of dollars in military AID and they're using both indiscriminately and without moral or legal justification.

Technology is to Amplify human ability. But when technology increases your ability so much as to allow you to make decisions which otherwise would have been more complex and costly and involve more risk then you need to be dam sure you’re not just taking the easy option at the cost of moral justification… this road gets slippier the more advanced weapons systems get.

In the not so distant future we’ll be seeing Boeing Phantom Rays armed with 1000 lb GPS guided JDAM bombs flying off carriers in formations operating with partial and in some cases full autonomy dropping bombs from 40,000 feet 20 miles out from completely unsuspecting targets … targets arbitrarily designated thousands of miles away based on intelligence which will remain of course top secret…. So it’s easy to see why I think this topic disserves discussion as these are the weapons which will be the teeth in any geopolitical situation from here on in. The USAF is currently training more Drone pilots than real ones… just that fact…which is a fact… should give you pause for thought.

Be like Nutella

How many people have been blown up and killed by US Predators and Reapers (let's just call them Drones) since the US started doing this kind of attack in Pakistan in 2004? (could've been a bit earlier but most data points to June 2004)

I reckon 1500 - 2500 people (including militants AND civilians)
where the stats come from???... well if you look at the Wiki page for Drone attacks in Pakistan you'll see a long section which itemises each attack for each date..

and in the vast majority of cases names the paper it was reported in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

There has also been a number of organisations who have carried out independent reports on the Drone attacks in Pakistan... for instance:
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/08/10/most-complete-picture-yet-of-cia-drone-strikes/
New America Foundation
http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/bergentiedemann2.pdf
And statistical sites too like
Pakistan Body Count
http://pakistanbodycount.org/drone_attack

Be like Nutella

This is obviously a stylised music video produced to show you how lethal these things are and how easy they are to operate but it isn't inaccurate ...this is actually whats been going on for 7 years.... plus it's not a bad tune

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ks8nOvPSJfY



How do they sell it? What's the US argument?
This is how: To put myself in the shoes of a US general....
"We’re talking about targeted killing i.e. assassination of ‘considered’ enemies of the USA who are considered to be part of a group or groups who may attack Americans or American interests in the world and so are being assassinated pre-emptively on that assertion using robotic flying drones (therefore saving US lives J) in a sovereign country with which the US is NOT at war with !"
in a nut shell.
The US is calling the whole thing ‘Self Defence’ during WAR, which it says it is at with Al Qaeda and other groups which come under the banner of ‘Terror’ since Sept 2001.
Most of the world disagrees and the Pakistani public sure as hell disagree but that doesn’t seem to matter.
The truth is that Pakistan gets a large portion of its defence budget from the US (into Billions of Dollars) and it is a country basically run by its military. The military need the money and so turn a blind eye to the drone attacks that sometimes come from over its borders in US Afghan bases and sometimes from within Pakistan itself. At least that’s been the situation up to now.

Look at it this way. Most experts agree that at the very very least, 300 innocent civilians, women and kids, have been killed by US drone attacks in Pakistan since 2004. Many say much much more than that but all agree at least this figure of 300. That means that statistically at least ONE innocent civilian has been murdered in every US drone attack since 2004.
A quick look at the first 3 years of Drone attacks on Wikipedia gives me: Approx 180 Killed including only ONE notable AQ leader.
**Look at the attack on 30 October 2006!!!
2004–2007
· 18 June 2004: 5 including Nek Muhammad Wazir killed in a strike near Wana, South Waziristan.[19]
· 14 May 2005: 2 killed including Haitham al-Yemeni in a strike near the Afghan border in North Waziristan.[20]
· 30 November 2005: Al-Qaeda's 3rd in command, Abu Hamza Rabia killed in an attack by CIA drones in Asoray, near Miranshah, the capital of North Waziristan along with 4 other militants.[21]
· 13 January 2006: Damadola airstrike kills 18 civilians in Bajaur area but misses Ayman al-Zawahri.URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][I][COLOR=#bc7134]citation needed[/COLOR][/I][/URL

**30 October 2006 Chenagai airstrike allegedly aimed at Ayman al-Zawahri destroys a madrassa in Bajaur area and kills 70–80 civilians./B][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed"][I][COLOR=#bc7134]citation needed[/COLOR][/I][/URL

· 16 January 2007: Up to 30 Taliban killed in a drone strike in Salamat Keley, Zamazola, South Waziristan.[22]
· 26 April 2007: 4 killed in the village of Saidgi in North Waziristan[23]
· 19 June 2007: 30 killed in the village of Mami Rogha in North Waziristan[24]
· 2 November 2007: 5 killed in an attack on a madrasah in North Waziristan[25]

***BBC article at the time
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6099946.stm
***Wikipage on the Chenagai airstrike – notice the difference between what was thought then (in the article) Vs what is known and admitted to now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenagai_airstrike

When you consider that senior US officials have said that intelligence on their targets is usually based on nothing more than location, observed behaviour and assumptions rather than HARD intel ….and that the decision can be made in a heartbeat by a Director thousands of miles away to instruct a team of Predator pilots sitting in an air-conditioned office in Langley Virginia to operate a Predator drone and fly it into Pakistan into the North Waziristan region and to fire two Hellfire missiles at a totally unsuspecting group of people on the ground who may be completely unarmed and may include within that group 3 children, an 85 year old grandfather and 3 women the shocking lunacy of the whole thing becomes clear as day.
And this has been happening on average every 3-4 days week on week since June 2004 the majority of which has happened under Obama believe it or not.
From what I have learned about how these ‘Militants’ are designated ‘Targets’, I think it is more than plausible that a third of these ‘Targets’ have been unfairly designated and if I add that figure to the generally considered innocent casualties figure (i.e. somewhere in the middle of the experts opinions on the issue) we start to get near 1000 innocent people having been assassinated illegally by a rogue bully nation in it’s supposed ‘War on Terror’.
It’s sickening… not just in its scale… who’s to say 500 murdered innocents is worse than 400 but more so because the world’s mainstream media has all but ignored the entire situation and worse than that.. the rest of the world’s most powerful leaders have remained mostly silent in their condemnation of these attacks/murders whatever you’d like to call them…. I call them murders and I think these attacks should be considered illegal under international law and just as with the US illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 somebody should be held accountable by the international community.
The problem is, in this debate (which of course shouldn’t even be a debate), is that when you pre-load the debate with…
“but we’re at war with Terror….. which can come from anywhere… including within our own borders by our own citizens and this ‘ Terror’ hates our way of life so much it will strike us anywhere anytime any which way it likes and doesn’t have to operate according to little things like Geneva Conventions”
…then ‘They’ i.e. US Generals can appear to argue logically that these attacks are pre-emptive self defence logical measures aimed at disrupting Al Qaeda leaders and planners who will find it harder to operate and plan attacks against US interests when they have to worry about getting annihilated by Hellfire missiles fired from invincible robots.
Also politically… US Political parties and leaders (one after the other) can’t appear to do nothing about Al Qaeda who could at any time DO another 9/11… which… as irrational as it may seem.. is a sorrowful reprecution of the September 9/11 attacks on the US political/cultural landscape.
This is the US legal argument that it feel justifies its continued Drone strikes in Pakistan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9qPYjK_n00&feature=player_embedded


And if the US is trying to blow up ‘Terrorism’ in Pakistan with Drones… is it not creating more terrorists with every innocent civilian it kills? Has that lesson not been played out countless times around the world in the last century??
Don't listen to me...listen to this guy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRby1IDACB8&feature=player_embedded

OS119

my view, which has changed, is that Pakistan is a failed/failing state, and that the more COIN friendly method (law enforcement) that the US/others would otherwise wish to use against these individuals/organisations is no longer possible in Pakistan.

so the US, without a credible partner in Pakistani government, is left with a single choice: undertake military operations in Pakistani territory, sometimes with, and sometimes without Pakistani permission to negate/disrupt/destroy such organisations, or do nothing. literally nothing.

given that choice, the use of UCAV is obvious - and the other options are even less attractive: on the ground raids like the Bin Laden job, or F-15E's doing racetracks over Peshawar.

Be like Nutella

I agree that Pakistan is unstable even verging on failing in the Kissinger sense but I think for that reason the effects of this Drone campaign is even more negative especially when you consider the Pakistani military relationship with Taliban and the future of that relationship as the US pull out of Afghanistan.
Basically if we're just talking logicically... I don't think the disurptie effects of Drone strikes in Waziristan are large enough and successful enough to strategically justify their continuance.
Of course when you consider people in the equation i.e. the angering of Pakistani's over innocents killed by a foreign agressor, and when you consider morals in the equation which can seem irrational...people are irrational....etc.. then you have I think a situation which is arguably illegal, unproductive short term and possibly amplifies the future threat of AQ to American interests, troops, civilians etc..

Most of the world it clearly seems, disagree with these drone attacks. There are law suits being brought against Obama and the US gov right now involving US, UK, European and Pakistani Lawyers. They have no right to enter another sovereign country and kill it's innocent civilians when they're not at war with that country. They won't kill them all and they'll be out of Afghanistan before they achieve much more than they have. It's not worth it... it's amoral...I don't care if theyre isn't a better option available... this option is provably wrong and unjustified and just as it has been universally proven that the Iraq invasion was unjustified and illegal... it will be proven that the 2004 -2012 Drone war in Pakistan was, is illegal, reckless and was never justified.... and only occurred because of the technogical ability to do it i.e. Predator MQ-1

OS119

Be like Nutella wrote: »

... I don't think the disurptie effects of Drone strikes in Waziristan are large enough and successful enough to strategically justify their continuance....

thats you're view, and you're entitled to it - personally i'm not wildly keen on the strikes because of the encitement effect you talk about - but while i accept entirely that by the use of attacks in Pakistan we create more enemies than might otherwise be the case, i think those strikes also do more damage to the various groups than Pakistan wants to admit.

i'm not an enormous fan of Obama, but i personally doubt that he would follow this policy if he wasn't convinced of the effecacy of the strike programme - his willingness to shut down previously directed US counter-terrorism programmes who'se efficacy he was not sure of, i think, suggests that he's not willing to let something run just because it happens to be ongoing policy, and that he would need to be convinced in order to both continue and expend the programme in the way that he has.

Be like Nutella

" It is estimated as many as 2,283 people have been killed by US drones in Pakistan since 2004. Of these, only 33 were said to be "high value targets" (HVTs). "

http://www.channel4.com/news/drone-attacks-in-pakistan-are-next-guantanamo

_____________________________________________________________


" Drone strikes, by the CIA or other US civilian agencies, against individuals and groups in Pakistan’s tribal areas, are the use of force by the representatives of one nation state against the civilians of another, a course of action proscribed by the UN charter. The contention here is that these US actions violate Pakistani sovereignty; that such actions are illegal under international treaties that the US has ratified; and that the defences put forward do not withstand scrutiny. Further, drone strikes are undermining the international community’s efforts to persuade Pakistanis that the fight against terrorists within their borders is a fight that must be fought for the sake of the future peace and prosperity of their country. "

http://tribune.com.pk/story/106663/a-case-against-us-drone-attacks/

______________________________________________________________


"..the 9/11 attacks provided the US an opportunity to interpret the doctrine of self-defense in a way it desires along with the invention of doctrine of ‘pre-emptive strike’ to seek legitimacy for use of force in self defense. "

http://www.issi.org.pk/old-site/reflecttions_Detail.php?dataId=99

_______________________________________________________________________


"..
Much of the intelligence for the attacks is supplied either by the Pakistani military or the ISI, the country's controversial intelligence agency.
Both have blocked journalists and human rights investigators from visiting the tribal areas targeted, preventing independent verification of the numbers killed and their status. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/15/cia-usa

_______________________________________________________________________


"..the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, Philip Alston, said last year that the US needed to provide more information about its approach to targeted killings to answer concerns that they might be in violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law. "

"..
Koh’s suggestion that drone strikes might be justifiable as self-defence even outside a recognisable armed conflict is in line with the position of earlier US administrations, as the legal scholar Ken Anderson recently argued in an article for the Weekly Standard. But what is missing in the administration’s justification for the drone attacks is any sense of what the limits are on the use of lethal force against individuals who do not pose an immediate threat. The restrictions in the laws of armed conflict, which concern only whether the target is engaged in hostilities against the United States and the degree of harm to other civilians, do not seem adequate here. "

http://www.crimesofwar.org/commentary/obama-administration-announces-legal-basis-for-drone-attacks/

_______________________________________________________________________

"..
Mary Ellen O’Connell, the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School, argued on October 22 at a London debate that the program violated international law. She further argued that the program should be handled under a law enforcement, as opposed to a military, framework. The argument against the legality of the drone strikes is simple: there is no legal right to resort to drone strikes because the U.S. is not involved in armed conflict in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia or anywhere else drone strikes have been used. Furthermore, drone strikes in Pakistan could not be legal nor justified because Pakistan had not given any open consent for the strikes. Nor could they be seen as an act of war because the strikes did not take place on Afghan soil, where U.S. troops currently operate. "

http://nationalsecuritylawbrief.com/2010/10/23/experts-challenge-legality-of-u-s-drone-strikes-in-pakistan/

______________________________________________________________________

" attacks must be directed only at legitimate targets and any anticipated civilian casualties must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military gain from the attack. "

http://jurist.org/forum/2011/08/laurie-blank-drone-strikes.php


_______________________________________________________________________

"
“I’m particularly concerned that the United States seems oblivious to this fact when it asserts an ever-expanding entitlement for itself to target individuals across the globe,” Mr. Alston said in an accompanying statement. “But this strongly asserted but ill-defined license to kill without accountability is not an entitlement which the United States or other states can have without doing grave damage to the rules designed to protect the right to life and prevent extrajudicial executions.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/world/03drones.html

_______________________________________________________________________

" “I had a dream to be a doctor,” he says. “But now I can’t even walk to school.” Today, Sadaullah is one of an increasing number of Pakistanis who are seeking justice in the courtroom against the orchestrators of a drone campaign which is believed to have killed thousands of their fellow citizens; a huge number of whom recent studies have shown to be innocent civilians.
"

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/15-Dec-2011/Pakistans-legal-fight-to-end-the-drone-war

_______________________________________________________________________

"..A 2009 Brookings Institution report estimated that U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan had killed 10 civilians on average for every militant. The security analyst Daniel Bynam noted that “civilian deaths create dangerous political problems. Pakistan’s new democratic government is already unpopular for its corruption, favoritism, and poor governance. U.S. strikes that take a civilian toll are a further blow to its legitimacy—and to U.S. efforts to build goodwill there.”

http://nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/15-Dec-2011/Pakistans-legal-fight-to-end-the-drone-war

_______________________________________________________________________

"..... In my reading of various news and opinion articles on the issue, legal objections to drones come in three varieties:

1. Drones violate domestic law. Many, or even most, drone strikes take place in Pakistan or other Middle Eastern countries where the US has not declared war against a foreign state, but is instead working with local officials to root out terrorists under some “handshake agreement.” As such, many people feel drone strikes are an unjustified use of presidential and military power. US officials defend drone strikes on the grounds that they do not target a formal state, but a small group of people that have carried out attacks on domestic soil and plan to do so again. Thus, formal warfare laws do not apply (in other words: hey, it’s just the never-ending War on Terror).

2. Drones violate international law, which restricts when and how different states can engage in armed conflict. Yet, as with domestic law, there is no conflict between two formal states. Also, most drone strikes are carried out by the CIA, which as a civilian agency and a noncombatant under international law is not governed by the same laws of war that cover US military agencies.

3. Drones kill civilians. The Wall Street Journal reported via intelligence officials that since Obama took office, the CIA has used drones to kill 400 to 500 suspected militants, while only ~20 civilians have been killed. However, in 2009, Pakistani officials said the strikes had killed roughly 700 civilians and only 14 terrorist leaders. Meanwhile, a New America Foundation analysis in northwest Pakistan from between 2004 to 2010 reports that the strikes killed between 830 and 1210 individuals, of whom 550 to 850 were militants (about two-thirds of the total).........."

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/the_ethics_of_drone_warfare/

______________________________________________________________________

"...legal scholars have questioned whether it is legal for the U.S. to target and execute individuals in countries the U.S. isn't at war with. Professor Mary Ellen O'Connell of the University of Notre Dame law school has called the drone program "unlawful killing," and says it violates international law...."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303450704575159864237752180.html

_______________________________________________________________________

"
Consider how terrifying it must be to the populations, especially the children, living under the threat of drones that can attack through clouds and dark skies. UAVs are hardly visible but sometimes audible through their frightful whining sound. Polls show Pakistanis overwhelmingly believe most of the drone-driven fatalities are civilians.
"

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/26-15

_______________________________________________________________________

Rare Photographs Show Ground Zero of the Drone War

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/photos-pakistan-drone-war/

Be like Nutella

Reports on the use of drone attacks

http://www.for.org.uk/files/drones-conv-killing.pdf


https://webspace.utexas.edu/rmc2289/LT/Shane%20Harris%20in%20NLJ%20on%20Drones.pdf


http://www.brecorder.com/pdf/Drones.pdf

xflyer

Well clearly you have an interest in the subject. I underestimated that. But my point remains however light heartedly delivered. This is a military forum, the politics of use of certain weapons is not neccessarily the remit of this forum. MTM tried to make that point and he is a serving member of the US army.

Clearly you've done your research, internet based though. As it happens an in law of mine is an expert in rules or war as it applies to these circumstances. I will have to chat to her. The US military send people to her courses so there's no better person to consult.

Anyway it's late and not the best circumstances to enter the debate.

BTW, I do have an interest in politics and have no illusions and no agenda.

But really is this the right forum?

Manic Moran

1. Drones violate domestic law. Many, or even most, drone strikes take place in Pakistan or other Middle Eastern countries where the US has not declared war against a foreign state, but is instead working with local officials to root out terrorists under some “handshake agreement.” As such, many people feel drone strikes are an unjustified use of presidential and military power. US officials defend drone strikes on the grounds that they do not target a formal state, but a small group of people that have carried out attacks on domestic soil and plan to do so again. Thus, formal warfare laws do not apply (in other words: hey, it’s just the never-ending War on Terror).

I don't believe the US has been in a formally declared state of war since WWII, but the use of military force has been pretty common over the last seven decades. Fortunately, the laws of war by their own terms cover not only declared hostilities, but also defacto hostilities for the cases where the official diplomatic niceties such as declarations are not observed.

2. Drones violate international law, which restricts when and how different states can engage in armed conflict. Yet, as with domestic law, there is no conflict between two formal states. Also, most drone strikes are carried out by the CIA, which as a civilian agency and a noncombatant under international law is not governed by the same laws of war that cover US military agencies.

There is a difference between a civilian and a noncombatant, again, the distinction is written into the laws of war. Not all civilians are noncombatants (and for the record, not all military personnel are combatants either). The same rules that make CIA drones combatants are the ones which make the people the drones are attacking combatants, and vice versa.

I note that your quote says that "Mary Ellen O’Connell, the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School, argued on October 22 at a London debate that the program violated international law." I would be curious to read the argument of the other person at the debate, who presumably is qualified to debate her and came to a differing conclusion. (Actually, reading her 27-page paper, I note on Page 21 she cites IRC study as distinguishing between civilians and combatants, and then at the top of page 22 she quotes the Geneva Conventions directly to include the bit that says civilians can be engaged in certain cases)

3. Drones kill civilians. The Wall Street Journal reported via intelligence officials that since Obama took office, the CIA has used drones to kill 400 to 500 suspected militants, while only ~20 civilians have been killed. However, in 2009, Pakistani officials said the strikes had killed roughly 700 civilians and only 14 terrorist leaders. Meanwhile, a New America Foundation analysis in northwest Pakistan from between 2004 to 2010 reports that the strikes killed between 830 and 1210 individuals, of whom 550 to 850 were militants (about two-thirds of the total).........."

That's more a political question. There is no doubt that every time a strike hits a noncombatant that political capital is used. This is a judgement call, and why we pay politicians lots of money to make such decisions on our behalf.

NTM

Be like Nutella

Probably not in retrospect but hey if a few people learn and talk about this thing whatever their opinion as a result...

Rules of War... yeah......well basically there's tons of arguing going on about this thing.... I could give you a pretty solid 'against' and a seemingly logical 'for'.... it gets political though... basically red v blue... republican v dems..... tough guy v liberal nerds crap....

The administration has at it's disposal an infinitely powerful legal engine to draw any kind of argument for anything at all.... I'm sure they could legally rationalise the holocaust if they wanted.... such is Law...and such is the imbalance of legal 'power' between a civilian and eh the US administration.... cue countless examples...let’s just say ... I dunno... the whole wikileaks thing... whatever... the point is.... there's tons of law profs and UN pepes and leaders and politicians from all over the world and organisations for rights of all kinds going berserk over this thing...for the simple reason...that... the US has had to try its best to legally justify its actions in this situation using abstract and novel argument such as redefining war as a concept and self defence as a concept within and outside of a war context...basically nobody gives a ****.. It’s illegal...it's wrong..it's amoral...and they’re on their won on this one...and the legal advisors who's remit it was to do their best to legally sanitise this thing should all be ashamed... the same way a defence attorney who uses some little loophole to get a serial murderer off the hook should be ashamed. When the world says you're wrong and you do it anyway then ya gotta back up what you're doin best ya can even if it means bending logic and inventing argument and pre-loading the debate, moving the goal posts etc etc..
The War on Terror has always been a big loada crap... it's an indictment on mankind that we as humans watched it all happen and didn't speak up enough... this is part of all that... 9/11 changed everything... it was a new type of attack... it freaked out the US and caused a knee jerk reaction which was politically fueled and ended up in two wars both of which were unjustified and has cost more than 100,000 lives... like just think about that for a second in case you haven't before or recently

100

Thousand

Lives

... the drone attacks are just another sad chapter in this War on Terror...the most bull**** phrase...bull**** concept...of our era....... so with the War on Terror you can write your own ticket..your own rules... you can call terrorism anything you want... sometimes its a national issue...i.e. Iran and Syria are terrorist nations!!..orrr...you can call it individual... i.e. we can't get this guy...who's a leader...a planner...so we can’t arrest him because of a,b,c, so we'll just drop bombs on the area we think he's in until we do? that seem human? Proportionate? Orrr Terrorism is asymmetric warfare and unlimited by laws...so eh...we'll carry out or cause to carry out massively abusive interrogation all over the world culminating in the torture and abuses of Abu Ghraib....again as a result of the lunacy inherent in the fog of war culture of the War on Terror .....and this cowardly drone war is just the same thing... Pakistan is Dem Rep and wouldn't stand for US going in on the ground in numbers and ****ing getting these dickhead terrorist leaders in fact it would bring down the government and end in civil war....America and you know this..... and also the US public after being lied into war and realising this clearly at this stage are war weary and want their sons back ....would never support 20,000 troops hitting the Fata region rooting out terrorists out of their Hiding places....so they can't and never could do that...so you see it wasn't just a question of using the right tool for the job.... they weren't ever allowed to do it any other way... for good ****in reason too... so they just sneakily waged a secret CIA war using CIA drones and ISI intelligence completely secretly for years before anyone knew... they COUNTED on the Pakistani military to bow to their demands based on the AID and they just did it anyway...without remit....legal justification or oversight of any nature... I can appreciate to a jarhead blood thirsty weapons enthusiast red meat eating war hungry war movie watching general Patton revering gombeen that it all seems so simple....terrorists there...point MISSILE...FIRE...**** REPROCUTIONS...POLITICIANS ARE GAY...DROP BOMBS ASK QUESTIONS LATER TYPE THING YOU READ UNDER DRONE PORN ON YOUTUBE BY SCUMBAGS... but... thats why we post....to discuss,,,sometimes people have no time for intelligent discussion and just want to try and brow beat and high horse it...but thats not what I was trying to do... I simply put up the topic...a bit of info on it...my opinion and .. there ya go...

Lemming

I gave up reading that last post half-way through; sorry Nutella. You've clearly put some effort into what you're writing but please for the love of monkeys can you use a bit more grammatical structure? And stop with the ... every fifteen words. It just adds to the difficult wall of text that requires deciphered (since you rarely finish a sentence in effect) and mores the pity.

ReacherCreature

Be_like_Nutella, "Pakistan is Dem Rep", I assume you mean Democratic Republic? Pakistan is hardly that.

Be like Nutella

ReacherCreature wrote: »

Be_like_Nutella, "Pakistan is Dem Rep", I assume you mean Democratic Republic? Pakistan is hardly that.

Pakistan is a democratic parliamentary federal republic with Islam as the state religion.

Or maybe you'd like to edit wikipedia.

In reality Pakistan may be corrupt as fcuk but technically it is a Dem Republic.

Manic Moran

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Pakistan is a democratic parliamentary federal republic with Islam as the state religion.

Or maybe you'd like to edit wikipedia.

In reality Pakistan may be corrupt as fcuk but technically it is a Dem Republic.

Looks like somebody has, because it states "federal parliamentary republic"

Most every "Democratic Republic" has been a communist dictatorship, hence the skepticism, I think.

In fact, I'm a loss to think of any technical democracies in the world at all, they tend to be parliamentary or representative governments.

NTM

ReacherCreature

Be like Nutella wrote: »

In reality Pakistan may be corrupt as fcuk but technically it is a Dem Republic.

Doesn't really deserve the label. The military have a huge hand in the running and I doubt voting is properly administrated. To me it doesn't pass the grade.

But yeah, technicalities mess it up.