Drone Strikes

Be like Nutella · 20-01-2013 11:22pm #1

For any topical drone debate relative to US Politics and Foreign policy.

the_syco · 20-01-2013 11:35pm

What? I came on expecting more than one line, which in itself doesn't seem to make any argument.

Be like Nutella · 20-01-2013 11:39pm

christ man : ) will ya take a chill pill I was just startin a thread for drone related stuff because somebody was saying other threads needed lockin and I thought a single thread for drone strikes would make sense in US Politics as it is constantly a central news item and topical to US news in recent times.. if ya get me

the_syco · 21-01-2013 12:48am

Ah cool. Ye get a few people posting one page sentences around these parts. So, to make people argue, here's two bits;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/20/cia-pakistan-drone-strikes-codification

John Brennan, the counter-terrorism adviser nominated by President Obama to be the next head of the CIA, has reportedly agreed to exempt agency strikes in Pakistan from a new set of rules that attempts to justify and codify the use of drones to assassinate leaders of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups around the world, including US citizens.

The dispensation to allow so-called targeted killing to continue without restrictions in Pakistan removes from the new set of guidelines the most important and controversial target of drone strikes. In the past few weeks the frequency of US strikes in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan, where many al-Qaida and Taliban leaders are hiding out, has been stepped up.

I wonder how Pakistans military views this; friend, or foe?

=-=

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/20/drone-attack-kills-militants-yemen?INTCMP=SRCH

More than 10 suspected al-Qaida operatives were killed by an explosion in a house in south Yemen where they were making bombs and at least three others died in a drone strike, tribal and official sources said on Sunday.

It seems Yemen is making full use of the drones.

Be like Nutella · 21-01-2013 3:09am

the_syco wrote: »

Ah cool. Ye get a few people posting one page sentences around these parts. So, to make people argue, here's two bits;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/20/cia-pakistan-drone-strikes-codification

I wonder how Pakistans military views this; friend, or foe?

=-=

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/20/drone-attack-kills-militants-yemen?INTCMP=SRCH

It seems Yemen is making full use of the drones.

well see its a messy situation in the countries where the US are doing the strikes. In Pakistan where the vast majority of drones strikes have been carried out - on one hand you've got a central Pakistani population (who really hate the US as a rule for various reasons not all of them rational:) you've got an intelligence agency the ISI who play both sides at the same time - they play the US off the Taliban and AQ so they can still get their billions of dollars annually in so called 'aid'...

"..Controversial Pakistani doctor and alleged CIA informant, Dr Shakil Afridi claimed in an interview to Fox News that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency regarded America as its “worst enemy” and that the incumbent government was cooperating with the US only to extract billions in aid..."

Dr Afridi
...“It is now indisputable that militancy in Pakistan is supported by the ISI […] Pakistan’s fight against militancy is bogus. It’s just to extract money from America,” Dr Afridi said, referring to the $23 billion Pakistan has received, mostly, in military aid since 9/11....."

http://tribune.com.pk/story/434542/dr-afridi-claims-isi-regards-us-as-worst-enemy/

fair enough that is just one quote from one source on one controversial dude but only coz I'm lazy right now (there's tonnes more evidence)

but that is a lot of cash - does that raise a question of conflict of interest? hmmm methinks so : )

then
you have on the other hand many Pakistani politicians constantly giving out about the drone strikes saying they're illegal and should stop immediately.

7th November, 2012

Khan, leader of the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf party (PTI), has campaigned for an end to US drone strikes against suspected Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas, saying they result in civilian casualties.

"..Khan argues that drone strikes are illegal and counterproductive and last month led thousands of supporters – and some US peace activists – on a march to the edge of Pakistan’s restive tribal districts to protest against them..."

http://dawn.com/2012/11/07/imran-khan-asks-obama-to-end-us-drone-attacks/

and there are many other Pakistani politicians who feel the same way and have voiced so in parliament

Pakistan again asks US to stop drone strikes

4 January 2013

- "We consider the drone strikes totally unproductive, illegal and violative of Pakistan's territorial integrity," Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Moazam Khan said Friday.

plus you have the very revealing wiki cable leak showing clearly that Pakistan's government in power says one thing publicly about drone strikes and then says a totally different thing in private when speaking to US officials.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/167125?INTCMP=SRCH

direct quote form the cable leak

"...Malik suggested we hold off alleged Predator attacks until after the Bajaur operation. The PM brushed aside Rehman,s remarks and said "I don,t care if they do it as long as they get the right people. We,ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it." ...."

so the picture in Pakistan is very messy in terms of Does Pakistan really want Drone strikes or not.. in fact it's a complex story which needs feeling out to properly understand... I'd say Cork Boy could explain it well given his understanding of these messy in-country faction paradoxes.

For now, for me - it's about manipulation to get what you want - The US and by that I mean the team of cross agency guys who have been putting drones to work for Obama does what it needs to do to be able to continue to do drone strike after drone strike in Pakistan's Waziristan region, no matter what internal political mess that causes... and it does cause a mess... in what is essentially a half failing state... probably the most dangerous country on the planet... with nukes and an out of control corrupt ISI... all of this doesn't matter to the US - they have set themselves a mission to do as many drone strikes as they can in that area and that is what they have done and are continuing to do. It doesn't serve any purpose to discuss the internal mess of Pakistan in this thread - that is a separate and important issue concerning the US's foreign policy but as far as the US drone strikes I prefer to focus on the strike policy and the strikes in and of themselves to determine whether they are legal, moral or productive and on all three counts my personal position is that they are not.

Approx 3000-3500 people have been blown up SO FAR by American Drone Hellfire missiles since the summer of 2004. That is an important number because the rationale for these strikes is something along the lines of

self-defense during a Global War on Terror using actions which properly reflect the risk of loss of American lives as authorized by congress after 9/11.... basically is what they say.

In EVERY SINGLE drone strike authorized - which is about 400-450 as of today, there HAD TO BE a situation where EVERY target represented a CLEAR AND IMMINENT RISK to US lives. This is not supported by reality.

In some instances drones took out guys who were definitely doing or about to be doing some majorly bad **** including planning attacks on America... and there was good Intel to support that conclusion... which said basically 'if we take out this guy, even though there's 4 kids around him and his wife and some old guy at the dinner table... this action will 70/80% PREVENT an attack WE KNOW is imminent on the US at home or abroad (which is a complicated definition debate in some cases)... and I am not delighted with that scenario but I do not object to it IF IT DIRECTLY STOPS SOME TERRORIST JIHADI FROM BLOWING UP TIME SQUARE AND 300 PEOPLE WITH HIM!... sadly this is not a reflection on each OR the MAJORITY of drone strike situations - and that's 400-450 of them!! So you can see why some people take issue yeah?

Easy to stand back and generalize without studying it and say 'fuk the terrorists and where they hide - blow them all up they gona do it to you in the end anyway'... and sadly a lot of arguments go like that. In the real world the debate is much more nuanced obviously and although some areas are actually debatable... in the case of outright moral wrongs there are many aspects of drone strikes which are just wrong on just about every level.

Take Signature Strikes for instance.

What is a signature strike some people will ask... a sig strike is basically where you fly your surveillance drones over an area and you see some dudes doing things which seem a bit lets call it 'terroristy'... I'm serious... and you then apply a set of rules to that picture and you make a decision to blow up these dudes even though you don't know who they are and what they're doing or may do in the future - literally no clue... but you do it because... well basically because you can... I mean you;ve already turned up for work in Langley to fly your drone today and you're supposed to be huntin AQ and the likes so when your commander says 'hey hit those guys there they seem well dodgy' you do it. Obviously I'm messin there is a process and it goes up the chain and the pictures and vids are looked at and then somebody makes a call that 'yeah those guys could be AQ so fuk it blow'em to hell' and that's what ya do... joystick left... crosshairs... select target... release Hellfire missile and in 1 second flat that baby is doing 1000 miles an hour BOOM puff of smoke... next target please.

That is a Signature Strike... and by many accounts and comments from top officials in many articles right across the web - the consensus is that Sig strikes became the 'majority of strikes' carried out in Pakistan. and that as I see it - is bad, basically on every level.

You can't go around blowing the sh1t outa people in a foreign country with which you're not at war with who doesn't want you there blowing up its people (innocent or guilty who knows) and in doing so kill hundreds of innocent civilians and kids and mothers and grandads... you just can't. But they do.

So there's two examples of where a drone strike is justified on some level and another scenario where it clearly is not. That is just one angle on the drone debate. There are many. So it is not a simple subject to learn about nor debate. But there are some areas which we can probably all agree on once they are properly delineated.

Signature strikes are bad and need to stop, for instance. Analysts agree with this sentiment. Journalists all over the place agree with this sentiment. Hell ex-CIA guys, Intel guys from all agencies, Army commanders, foreign politicians of all sorts - agree with this sentiment. And there is some momentum towards actually stopping or at least greatly reducing 'Signature Drone Strikes'... and this is the power of debate and proper analysis and proper journalism and well researched reports and legal arguments... eventually all this talk... on forums too... leads to a trending meme... a public understanding... and finally outrage and the effects of that is that a US 'action' or 'policy' becomes 'untenable' and so they change what they do. If that saves innocent Pakistani lives and results in a more rational US foreign policy then great but we're not there yet but there is momentum. As shown in this CFR report by Micah Zenko (resident CFR Drone nerd and anti-sig strike activist... in a way : )

Micah Zenko from Reforming US Drone Strike Policies (link below)

"...Consequently, the United States should more fully explain and reform
aspects of its policies on drone strikes in nonbattlefield settings by
ending the controversial practice of “signature strikes”..."

http://www.cfr.org/wars-and-warfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736

When the traditional den of CT wet dreams neocon hawk-tank of the Council on Foreign Relations put up a report by one of their guys for download and cause waves across the net in doing so - you should take note! In other words - even the CFR think Sig Strikes should be stopped.
I've spoken with Zenko by email - he's a pure rationalist... he does see value in drone strikes but not sig strikes. He sees how anti-productive certain types of drone strikes have been and I agree with him 100%.

I very much recommend reading the report - it took me 45 mins... there's a lot of padding as is usually the case. CFR is just one of many think tanks which virtually advise the administration by way of peer-reviewed sentiment within the circles of those who are considered knowedgeable and smart enough to think about US foreign policy. Presidential advisers read all the reports and produce policy recommendations from the body of reports hence they're called think tanks - you can argue how great one is or is not... I don't bother I read stuff from them all and treat them critically like everything else.

Micah Zenko's recommendations are valid and rational but don't go far enough IMO but I think he chose to limit his reach to what would be read and talked about as opposed to ruffling too many feathers with anything too radical. You won't get much attention or consideration with stuff like I write i.e. drones are murder and drone strikes are evil and so forth haha it's not the type of opinion which affects policy.

3000-3500 PEOPLE BLOWN TO BITS SO FAR INCLUDING HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS, MANY OF WHICH ON A 'WHIM' USING SIGNATURE STRIKES WITHOUT KNOWING WHO THEY ARE DESTROYING. YOU CANNOT SUPPORT THAT RATIONALLY - YOU CAN SHOUT ABOUT TERRORISTS BUT YOU CANNOT RATIONALLY SUPPORT SIG STRIKES ON THAT SCALE.

Be like Nutella · 25-01-2013 8:34pm

New PBS Doc on Drones

The Rise Of Drones

Quite a bit of military access in this doc.

Some disconcerting info revealed in it such as the fact that Killer Drone Pilots are being trained off the street within months - to fly actual kill missions without any prior Air Force training or prior weapons training or combat experience of any kind. Not a good recipe IMO at all. Up to now all drone pilots have been USAF trained prior to enrolling in flying killer drones such as the Reaper which can carry pretty much the same amount of death as a fighter jet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9A7pJwyMXo

CollardGreens · 26-01-2013 5:05am

I agree with you Nutella that ppl should be military trained to use the drones, and I'm also thinking that there are way too many ppl that are getting their hands on them not only in the states but in our enemy countries.

The big cities here in the states I've been told have the drones within their police dept.

Sometimes I wish I were very, very old because I don't want to see how this world will end up 20-30 years from now and I feel sorry for the children that are born into what seems to me to be a world way out of control.

Everything is done with the push of buttons, text messages, twitter, and facebook for friendship/relationships. For the record, I don't do text, twitter or FB but choose to enjoy natural things like being outside in the woods, on the beach, fishing/surfing or just being with friends & family eating some good food and laughing.

Are you old enough to remember this song? The words, I think of it often.

Be like Nutella · 26-01-2013 5:23am

don't despair there's still hope for us yet ; )

"He's taken everything this old Earth can give,
And he ain't put back nothing..."

sometimes we're attracted to over arching narratives and thinkin of mankind as some kind of single conscience.. but it ain't like that... at least not yet. Everything needs to be analyzed on its own at first. Drones for instance are just a totally natural progression form the cold war and DARPA - they were probably always going to come into widespread use if you look at the evolution of vehicles to bi-planes to how the great wars advanced planes right up to the SR-71 Blackbird doing Mach 3 over Russia faster than a sniper bullet - to take some pictures... so the natural evolution was to simply control the plane with radio signals from far away and not risk the pilot and now we got Reapers and Global Hawks and crawling, swimming, diving, flying drones of all kinds. The tech always takes a curve upwards when massive funding or massive drive is behind it... in this case the massive drive is a political catch 22 where the US wants to influence things in its favor but cannot put many US lives at risk... in fact any at all is too many right now from all the bullsh1t war that you guys were duped into getting involved with. Drones that we see now are just the early part of a curve - they are the bi-planes before World War 2 and they will advance as with all other tech exponentially once there is a driving factor behind them. The problem is that this is the only chance we'lkl get to think about what we'#re doing with them before that rate of advancement and spread of drone tech across the entire globe speeds up past our ability to control it. Laws of conflict are from the 1940's and need to be seriously updated to take into account Drone War. The US made a really bad start to things in the drone world by committing hundreds of war crimes using drones before laws could catch up with their use. But that is what all these reports are about - catching up. Dealing with the moral side of drone use and codifying those generally agreed normative morals into international law which will prevent countries like the US from carrying out too many war crimes in future with drones - IF it's done right. The risk now is that the US and Russia and China etc will use this period to basically justify into law a wide bracket of drone use which will under arbitrarily created devices such as the Global War On Terror - allow them to do what they want when they want given certain scenarios and that will just serve no purpose at all.

Be like Nutella · 16-02-2013 12:04am

Assertions by Obama administration officials, as well as by many scholars, that these operations comply with international standards are undermined by the total absence of any forms of credible transparency or verifiable accountability. The CIA’s internal control mechanisms, including its Inspector-General, have had no discernible impact; executive control mechanisms have either not been activated at all or have ignored the issue; congressional oversight has given a ‘free pass’ to the CIA in this area; judicial review has been effectively precluded; and external oversight has been reduced to media coverage which is all too often dependent on information leaked by the CIA itself. As a result, there is no meaningful domestic accountability for a burgeoning program of international killing. This in turn means that the United States cannot possibly satisfy its obligations under international law to ensure accountability for its use of lethal force, either under International Human Rights Law or International Humanitarian Law. The result is the steady undermining of the international rule of law, and the setting of legal precedents which will inevitably come back to haunt the United States before long when invoked by other states with highly problematic agendas.

The Above is a quote from a paper by former UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Prof Philip Alston, which can be downloaded from the link below.

The CIA and Targeted Killings Beyond Borders, Prof Philip Alston
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1928963

Targeted Killings: The US, the UN and Accountability by Philip Alston
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crtAuI50vgs

Professor Christian Enemark : 'Predators, reapers and post-heroic war ' at The Australian National University on 9 August 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLBDqy6pj28&ytsession=5ZujpRohnNa_CT206UF8ywUsMDJy8klscHlEZXcrYfHYQavMemR_C3n0fO6APBzeELEGIFN3cj1ab8KcXGH76c6AIFaACSi9Qa1EBrGwgbPL-oBiSf5rCMzWG_A7541Ldafo2qzmQFCx14jwtDd4RYc-A_dgHMbJBaMfEEWLd2NWOY8W80k3LvC0NpTgnPWX9VOH0OydmnO0-jhK0kaxWDchETKQZFPR0zgs7wMKlUcdrs_dZRfHo86I0wNKqwIRQQNyJuiUb_JgcEYHcq6fJfi4udJCrfhk1epAdSh5b-s

Drone Policy Will Come Back to Haunt US
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy4aLYsYODs

Extrajudicial Killing Debate with Philip Alston & John Dehn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1mFMyBFx38

What We Talk About When We Talk About Drones
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/special/drones_65120

Attorney General Eric Holder on Targeted Killings of Americans Overseas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZX8rtuqMiw

Pakistan Demands USA Stop Drone Strikes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1dPcZ4c-T0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YVnn1GrNlA&feature=watch_response

Obama confirms Pakistan drone strike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERbFO06Ppnk

CIA Director: Drone Attacks in Pakistan Will Continue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_75yCJvAi8A&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-DJ6JOaHvc

New America Foundation Analysis of Drone Strikes: The Year of the Drone
http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones

Pakistan Body Count Stats
http://pakistanbodycount.org/drone_attack

Predator Drones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMh8Cjnzen8

Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle

International Human Rights Law IHRL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_law

International Humanitarian Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_humanitarian_law

Laws of War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

Be like Nutella · 16-02-2013 12:13pm

Great Comment I read under a NYT article recently:

The total lack of transparency in the CIA Drone program is an affront to our Democracy. John Brennan once declared no civilians were being killed and even the Obama Administration claimed civilian deaths were in the "single digits." Both claims were lies and they knew it. Drone strikes are not investigated by the CIA so we don't know how many civilians are killed, or if the alleged militants/terrorists are planning an imminent attack on the U.S. U.S. policy was changed claiming every adult male killed by a Drone strike is a terrorist, unless after the person is killed, it is conclusively proven he was not. Such proof is impossible.

For the first time in our history, the President has the power to kill anyone he declares a terrorist, anytime, anywhere in the World, be it an American, or foreigner. This policy is immoral, violates our system of checks and balances, and is dictatorial.

Congress and the President (especially Obama) have gotten a free pass from the public in ever expanding Drone strikes. How can so many people (over 80% of Americans) support a policy they know absolutely nothing about? We were told that terrorists were being sent to Gitmo, yet 603 of the 775 were released after concluding they were not terrorists with many more waiting release. Killing people in Pakistan, Somalia & Yemen merely because we declare they are terrorists is unethical, illegal and immoral. It must be stopped.
_______________

Pretty much the most succinct opinion on the issue I have read to date.

Black Swan · 16-02-2013 3:50pm

MOD REMINDER:

Dr Galen wrote: »

This forum is not a newsdump... to post copy & pastes from other sites. All OP's and posts require some input of your own.

asherbassad · 19-02-2013 12:39pm

Well it's clear that the rule of law doesn't apply to the US anymore. The Laws of Warfare and the Geneva Conventions were really only ever given lip-service but were rarely adhered to. Just read the book "kill Everything That Moves" and watch the Irish-made documentary "Get The Picture".

But now instead of apprehending suspects, questioning them, charging them, trying them and convicting or acquitting them, the US now just simply kills them with no due process and no judicial oversight and this is the new norm.

I thought the US had plumbed the depths when it implemented its kidnap and torture program but now just assassinating people from the sky means they're reached a new benchmark in complete lawlessness, brutality and savagery.

I wish there was another planet I could live on....far away from these people.

Be like Nutella · 20-02-2013 11:26pm

I can understand your frustration... this drone sh1t is off the moral charts.

The September 11th attack really fuked up the US, the whole system, and allowed hawks in Washington to really flex their muscles and push through doctrine and warfare of an amoral nature which didn't reflect the classic US moral high ground so often hailed up to that point. They're going through a very dark period since Bush came in with his neocon cronies. But there are good few rational minded politicians over there...if you look closely and their system of checks and balances is just starting again to show some courage recently, what with Rand Paul's question about drone strikes on US soil holding up Brennan's appointment, to Ted Poe's sponsoring of the Preserve American Privacy Act 2013 to this new idea for courts for drones strikes which may kick in in 2014 - the drone strikes seem like they are going to reduce in number dramatically at some point but we'll have to wait and see - the wheels are starting to turn. It's too late for a thousand or so innocent Pakistani civilians (that's ok they're worth less than white American's anyway;) but that's why we argue about it, here and in the media and on the news shows - so that eventually sense will prevail and moral normatives are somewhat restored from a very low place to something more human... but it will take a lot of previously quiet and cowardly ignorant politicians on both sides of the isle to stand up and show some backbone and speak out against the drone strikes and the black sites and the torture etc etc You have to admit to your mistakes, own them and then try to fix the system. That takes courage and honest politicians - something the US has been sorley missing for some time now.

Gatling · 21-02-2013 12:05am

I think I'm the only one with the view of pro drone strikes ,since the Israelis inception of armed drones to the super all singing all dancing types now roaming the global battle space,we keep reading about various causalities inside various Pakistani regions and beyond with news reports of ohhh the poor innocent bomb maker and his friends who just happen to loose out on on his martyrdom,because some chap sitting in a connex container several thousands of miles away decides ohh look armed men gathering looks bad and decides my boom is better than yours press of the button mad mullah day out ends, this is modern warfare personally morals belong at a bible group not in modern warfare a lot pretty educated people write various reports shocking figures yadda yadda yadda this is wrong we investigated every drone strike and none were actually justified and every person killed were innocent farmers just with stock piles of explosives and arms cashes ,the main issue since ww2 in american war fighting and the polices behind every conflict since ww2 lack of any understanding and using propaganda ,bad guys get killed call CNN or NBC ohh the horror americans kill innocent bad guys again everybody attack the cia or the white house because we know hacks never get it wrong ,and yet if Pakistan is so against drones they could easily stop them it ,it seems every few weeks that Iran manages to capture the latest us drones and in 10 years Pakistan has none to show off or shot down makes me wonder why ,I'd personally love to see the isi accidentally targeted along the same lines as the Taliban/alqueda

G Power · 21-02-2013 11:41am

Gatling wrote: »

I think I'm the only one with the view of pro drone strikes ,since the Israelis inception of armed drones to the super all singing all dancing types now roaming the global battle space,we keep reading about various causalities inside various Pakistani regions and beyond with news reports of ohhh the poor innocent bomb maker and his friends who just happen to loose out on on his martyrdom,because some chap sitting in a connex container several thousands of miles away decides ohh look armed men gathering looks bad and decides my boom is better than yours press of the button mad mullah day out ends, this is modern warfare personally morals belong at a bible group not in modern warfare a lot pretty educated people write various reports shocking figures yadda yadda yadda this is wrong we investigated every drone strike and none were actually justified and every person killed were innocent farmers just with stock piles of explosives and arms cashes ,the main issue since ww2 in american war fighting and the polices behind every conflict since ww2 lack of any understanding and using propaganda ,bad guys get killed call CNN or NBC ohh the horror americans kill innocent bad guys again everybody attack the cia or the white house because we know hacks never get it wrong ,and yet if Pakistan is so against drones they could easily stop them it ,it seems every few weeks that Iran manages to capture the latest us drones and in 10 years Pakistan has none to show off or shot down makes me wonder why ,I'd personally love to see the isi accidentally targeted along the same lines as the Taliban/alqueda

you feel better now?? if you and your family were terrorised by drone attacks raining down on you all for even 30 minutes i bet you would a very different view.

Be like Nutella · 21-02-2013 7:04pm

I will concede that non-military people do not understand military action as much as military people.
I will concede journalists can be, and are wrong, on a day to day basis.
I will concede that many deluded terrorists live in Waziristan and that they would like to do harm to Americans and should be stopped.
I will even concede that the reports and studies that have been carried out are not going to be accurate in their discrete numbers.

But the way you say it all 'Gatling' makes you seem like another gun-toting General Patton wanabe which I wouldn't say you are. I wouldn't say you truly believe in indiscriminate drone kills or the idea of using drones to kill guys without proper evidence to show they are an imminent threat. I would say you would view a drone strike which killed 80 kids in a madras which was executed on dodgy Intel and carried out because it was easy to do and wouldn't be investigated - is wrong.. right? I would say you'd disagree with that? But I myself would kill somebody if I thought I had no other way of stopping them doing harm to a bunch of people and I knew I was averting 20 people getting killed by some guy. I have no problem with that morally but I would HAVE TO KNOW or be 95% certain that they were going to do this act in the future and be able to support that thesis with demonstrable facts and evidence.

Let me ask you ... do you
a) believe the US is at constant war with terrorism around the world?
and
b) will be possibly forever and should therefore act accordingly?
and
c) has, therefore, the inherent right to do whatever it wants as if it was trying to win a war as long as it was acting in self-defense under the concept of being at continuous war wherever that war brings it?

Be like Nutella · 21-02-2013 7:46pm

A US congressman Lindsey Graham, a staunch supporter of the drone war, revealed yesterday that 4700 people have been blown up by Drones thus far.

here's an interesting quote by 3 star general William Odom, formerly President Reagan's NSA Director, who wrote:

"As many critics have pointed, out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world. A prudent American president would end the present policy of "sustained hysteria" over potential terrorist attacks..treat terrorism as a serious but not a strategic problem, encourage Americans to regain their confidence, and refuse to let al Qaeda keep us in a state of fright."

cyberhog · 27-02-2013 9:20am

Craig Murray has done an interesting bit on drones for his latest blog entry.

The United States has set up its first Sahelian drone base, in Niger, in order to carry on the war against “Al-Qaedah in the Islamic Maghreb”. The problem is that there is no such thing as “Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb”. The US seems to confuse Al-Qaeda with Starbucks. Al-Qaeda does not have branches everywhere, a highly organised supply chain, and transfer pricing.

...

Hatred of the United States has not been a strong motivator in the Maghreb. But now the United States is about to introduce the concept of weekly drone kills and collateral murders, it will be. The USA is going to create the kind of anti-American unity which does not exist at present, and yet it claims to be fighting.

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/02/the-starbucks-view-of-al-qaida/

Manach · 07-03-2013 9:41am

An interesting debate on Drone strikes on Slashdot and the fillibuster that Rand Paul is undertaking to highlight the issue. : Slashdot.
It does seem that the issue is non-partisan where the Pro/Anti strikes are found in both US parties.

Be like Nutella · 08-03-2013 3:54pm

The far left and ACLU are against government abusing rights and targeted killings in general, the far right Tea Party heads are against Obama in general and his champion 'strategy' against Terrorism and want to restrict any likelihood of big bro drone surveillance within the US, Rand Paul himself like his father wants congress to take back power from the Exec Branch who have been on a drunken adventure since 9/11. The media, who usually supports drone strikes and Obama has turned a corner and is now on board the hype around Rand Pauls stance and the delaying of CIA and Sec Defense jobs so it's all working in favor of tightening the leash on Obama's despicable drone program. Even retarded Fox news is helping the issue as they will do anything which shines a neg light on Obama. I am not a fan of Rand Paul and his broader stances in general but I like his move here - clearly with 2016 in mind. Politically genius.

A great quote from Micah Zenko of the CFR today..

"More important than the theater of Rand Paul’s filibuster would be its impact (if any) on rallying the sustained interest of his colleagues to examine the full scope of America’s ten years and four months-practice of targeted killings. This will only be possible if the White House—as it has promised to do for many months—decides to more comprehensively engage with Congress, the American people, and the world about this unending Third War."

clairefontaine · 08-03-2013 10:36pm

Be like Nutella wrote: »

The far left and ACLU are against government abusing rights and targeted killings in general, the far right Tea Party heads are against Obama in general and his champion 'strategy' against Terrorism and want to restrict any likelihood of big bro drone surveillance within the US, Rand Paul himself like his father wants congress to take back power from the Exec Branch who have been on a drunken adventure since 9/11. The media, who usually supports drone strikes and Obama has turned a corner and is now on board the hype around Rand Pauls stance and the delaying of CIA and Sec Defense jobs so it's all working in favor of tightening the leash on Obama's despicable drone program. Even retarded Fox news is helping the issue as they will do anything which shines a neg light on Obama. I am not a fan of Rand Paul and his broader stances in general but I like his move here - clearly with 2016 in mind. Politically genius.

A great quote from Micah Zenko of the CFR today..

"More important than the theater of Rand Paul’s filibuster would be its impact (if any) on rallying the sustained interest of his colleagues to examine the full scope of America’s ten years and four months-practice of targeted killings. This will only be possible if the White House—as it has promised to do for many months—decides to more comprehensively engage with Congress, the American people, and the world about this unending Third War."

The ACLU have a list of prioritised people tbh. I'm not a fan of them at all.

But I agree with you since 911 the US has lost the plot. Al Quaeda may as well have won because so many of our freedoms have been robbed and stripped of us and by our own government. I don't deny that terrorism is a real threat [tactic or whatever you want to call it] and we have real enemies, but if the point is to bring down the free world from the inside, so that the people of the free world are the ones who are destroying their own freedoms, well then their tactics have worked.

I was always a fan of Ron Paul, he was the only one who talked any sense to me, although not entirely- I do think he is idealistic is some respects, but far more balanced than any of the other crackpots around.

The whole relationship between the US and Saudi and the rest of the ME is trapped in a kind of political soap opera where things are going on behind the scenes and we are not getting the full picture. None of it makes any sense and there must be a reason why it makes no sense.

Obama has run amok with executive power. The fact that the IRS can financially punish you if you dont take out health insurance is CRAZY!!! How did this pass? How did the ability to take out any US citizen without trial happen? How did this all happen? Madness. I hope he does enough craziness that he hangs himself and gets impeached.

Be like Nutella · 09-03-2013 12:05am

clairefontaine wrote: »

I don't deny that terrorism is a real threat [tactic or whatever you want to call it] and we have real enemies, but if the point is to bring down the free world from the inside, so that the people of the free world are the ones who are destroying their own freedoms, well then their tactics have worked.

ya know I'd say you're dead right. I'd say there's AQ guys sittin somewhere tonight thinkin - ya know it doesn't matter what we do or don't do they attack themselves so much taking away their own rights and giving their government dictatorial powers.... 9/11 was far more successful then they ever thought it would be.

The threat of Jihadist Terrorism to the USA is simply overblown. The so called Global War on Terror is a pile of crap. People are starting to wake up. The CIA/NSA have stepped way outside their remits and need to be squashed back into their boxes and made do what they were doing in the first place - trying to detect and stop terrorist plots upon the US Homeland. That they failed on 9/11 is terrible but it shouldn't change their remit.

I have MASSIVE respect for Rand Paul's 13 hour filibuster speech. I've listen to the first hour and I'm going to listen to the whole bloody thing over the next weeks just out of respect for the guy for doing it, for standing up and shouting about the total abuse of presidential executive powers which BOTH Bush AND Obama are guilty of. This is not a partisan issue. The US admin needs a serious smack-down!

clairefontaine · 09-03-2013 12:17am

It's pure theater. When you have $100 worth of mascara, cream blush, and lipstick taken off you at an airport and the NYPD are rummaging through old ladies' handbags, and more people die from gunshot wounds than terrorist attacks, you know this is a ****ing farce.

Someone is making money off this crap. The secret is to finding out who. Follow the money.

Be like Nutella · 09-03-2013 12:21am

here's an interview with Sen Paul about his 13 hour filibuster about due process and drone strikes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNCLR-U9fII

clairefontaine · 09-03-2013 12:42am

My sound isn't working. I'll have to catch that again on the television.

A 13 hour filibuster, glad someone in there has some stamina!

You are seriously going to listen to the whole thing?

Both Pauls, father and son are way into the Federalist Papers, probably the only guys in there who have read them. If you want to understand the US, you have to read them.

If you don't have due process then you don't have rule of law and then you don't really have democracy.

Be like Nutella · 11-03-2013 6:28pm

Projected US Drone Inventory in 2017

U.S. Air Force
MQ-1B Predator 110
MQ-9A Reaper 256
RQ-4B Global Hawk 15
Total……………………381

U.S. Army
RQ-11B Raven 7,074
RQ-7B Shadow 408
MQ-5B Hunter 45
MQ-1C Gray Eagle 152
Total……………………7,679

U.S. Navy
MQ-4C BAMS 13
MQ-8B Firescout/TUAV 37
RQ-21A STUAS 4
RQ-21A Scan Eagle 122
UCLASS 4
Total……………………180

U.S. Marine Corps
RQ-7B Shadow 52
RQ-21A STUAS 100
Total……………………152
GRAND TOTAL…….8,392

Taken form this article.
http://www.matthewaid.com/post/29822072373/how-many-unmanned-drones-is-the-u-s-flying

"...Can anyone out there tell me why the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps need 2,000 more unmanned drones over the next five years given that the last U.S. combat troops are scheduled to be withdrawn from Afghanistan either late next year or in early 2014?..."

The main supplier of combat drones is General Atomics. They supply the Predators, Gray Eagles (or Warriors) and the larger 'Reaper' drones (MQ-9s) - so far they've supplied about 15 Billion dollars of drones ! That's a lot of M.I.C. in the mix right there. They operate out of San Diego California, thousands of highly paid jobs! I wonder how hippy California feels about the Drone war : )

Be like Nutella · 09-04-2013 2:35pm

This talk covers precisely what you're getting at !

Nothing easy is ever worth doing.... in the long term.

Welcome to post-heroic war !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLBDqy6pj28

Neutronale · 19-04-2013 7:13pm

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Projected US Drone Inventory in 2017

U.S. Air Force
MQ-1B Predator 110
MQ-9A Reaper 256
RQ-4B Global Hawk 15
Total……………………381

U.S. Army
RQ-11B Raven 7,074
RQ-7B Shadow 408
MQ-5B Hunter 45
MQ-1C Gray Eagle 152
Total……………………7,679

U.S. Navy
MQ-4C BAMS 13
MQ-8B Firescout/TUAV 37
RQ-21A STUAS 4
RQ-21A Scan Eagle 122
UCLASS 4
Total……………………180

U.S. Marine Corps
RQ-7B Shadow 52
RQ-21A STUAS 100
Total……………………152
GRAND TOTAL…….8,392

Taken form this article.
http://www.matthewaid.com/post/29822072373/how-many-unmanned-drones-is-the-u-s-flying

"...Can anyone out there tell me why the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps need 2,000 more unmanned drones over the next five years given that the last U.S. combat troops are scheduled to be withdrawn from Afghanistan either late next year or in early 2014?..."

The main supplier of combat drones is General Atomics. They supply the Predators, Gray Eagles (or Warriors) and the larger 'Reaper' drones (MQ-9s) - so far they've supplied about 15 Billion dollars of drones ! That's a lot of M.I.C. in the mix right there. They operate out of San Diego California, thousands of highly paid jobs! I wonder how hippy California feels about the Drone war : )

Because in their neo-colonial wars they only worry about their own casualties...if there are no Americans dying, there is no war, its never mattered how many foreigners die...

cyberhog · 11-05-2013 6:17am

Neutronale wrote: »

Because in their neo-colonial wars they only worry about their own casualties...if there are no Americans dying, there is no war, its never mattered how many foreigners die...

We may see a change in that attitude now that the Peshawar High Court has ruled that US drone strikes are illegal and war crimes.

Here's how The Independent describes the case:

A Pakistani court has declared that US drone strikes in the country's tribal belt are illegal and has directed the government to move a resolution against the attacks in the United Nations.

In what activists said was an historic decision, the Peshawar High Court issued the verdict against the strikes by CIA-operated spy planes in response to four petitions that contended the attacks killed civilians and caused “collateral damage”.

Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, who headed a two-judge bench that heard the petitions, ruled the drone strikes were illegal, inhumane and a violation of the UN charter on human rights. The court said the strikes must be declared a war crime as they killed innocent people.

“The government of Pakistan must ensure that no drone strike takes place in the future,” the court said, according to the Press Trust of India. It asked Pakistan's foreign ministry to table a resolution against the American attacks in the UN.

“If the US vetoes the resolution, then the country should think about breaking diplomatic ties with the US,” the judgment said.

...

Clive Stafford Smith of the London-based group Reprieve, which has supported the case, said: “Today's momentous decision by the Peshawar High Court shines the first rays of accountability onto the CIA's secret drone war.”

He added: “For the innocent people killed by U.S. drone strikes, it marks the first time they have been officially acknowledged for who they truly are - civilian victims of American war crimes.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pakistani-court-declares-us-drone-strikes-in-the-countrys-tribal-belt-illegal-8609843.html

Here's more from the ruling itself:

i. “to order the respondents to immediately assert its State Sovereignty and convey forcefully to the US in clear terms that no further drone strikes will be tolerated on its sovereign territory;

iii. to provide redress for the criminal offences committed by those involved inside and outside Pakistan in drone operations and in particularly involved in the strike on 17th March 2011 by directing the relevant authorities that criminal charges, under the relevant laws of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan be registeredagainst those responsible;

The ruling hits hard at the US:

The United States through self framed opinion labeled these foreign elements as their enemy. The U.S decision making troika, the President, Pentagon & CIA have joined hands to carryout drone strikes in these areas on spy information to hit & kill these elements, however, the ratio of killing of foreign elements is negligible while local civilians, non-combatants, casualties are shockingly considerable, beside damage caused to the properties of the local population, their households and other moveable properties including cattle heads, in great number, is a painful phenomena. The most shocking, gruesome & goriest side of these ruthless strikes is that the degree of precision is hardly maintained and why the figures, given above, would prove that these are carried out at random and innocent civilians casualties mostly of infant babies, pre-teen & teenage children, women & others including their properties are hundred times greater than those, killed alleged to be militants.

...

The forming of an opinion by the CIA that these strikes target groups of men, who are militants having links with terrorist groups, is based on figment of imagination and till date no tangible, reliable & convincing proof has been furnished to that effect by the U.S Authorities including CIA.

It also mentions the US practice of targeting first responders:

The international observers’ analysis unrebuttably proved that through drone strikes in Pakistan territory residential houses, vehicles, worshippers in mosques, mourners in funeral procession and even rescue personnel have been attacked with brutality.

And the ruling concludes:

. “That the drone strikes, carried out in the tribal areas (FATA) particularly North & South Waziristan by the CIA & US Authorities, are blatant violation of Basic Human Rights and are against the UN Charter, the UN General Assembly Resolution, adopted unanimously, the provision of Geneva Conventions thus, it is held to be a War Crime, cognizable by the International Court of Justice or Special Tribunal for War Crimes, constituted or to be constituted by the UNO for this purpose.

...

iii. That the civilians casualties, as discussed above, including considerable damage to properties, livestock, wildlife & killing of infants/suckling babies, women and preteen children, is an uncondonable crime on the part of US Authorities including CIA and it is held so.

v. The Government of Pakistan and its Security Forces shall ensure that in future such drone strikes are not conducted & carried out within the sovereign territory of Pakistan.

vi. The Government of Pakistan is directed to take the matter seriously before the Security Council of the UNO and in case it does not succeed there if VETTO (sic) power is unduly exercised by the US Authorities then, urgent meeting of the General Assembly be requisitioned through a written request to resolve this menace in an effective manner.

ix. [v]In case the US Authorities do not comply[/b] with the UNO Resolution, whether passed by the Security Council or by the General Assembly of UNO, the Government of Pakistan shall severe all ties with the USA and as a mark of protest shall deny all logistic & other facilities to the USA within Pakistan.

http://www.peshawarhighcourt.gov.pk/images/wp%201551-p%2020212.pdf

The world will never be at peace as long as the US continues acting as a law unto itself,so I'm pleased to see Pakistan is finally taking action against the US terror strikes that have killed so many innocent people.

Manic Moran · 12-05-2013 3:50am

I'm pleased to see Pakistan is finally taking action against the US terror strikes that have killed so many innocent people.

Pakistan hasn't done anything. A mid-level court has issued a ruling which Pakistan's government may appeal to the next level.

It is interesting, however, as a matter of judicial process, that the Chief Justice feels fit to recommend to the government what actions it should take on the international political stage. Most 'Western' judicial systems would see fit to rule on law, not engage into politics.

cyberhog · 23-10-2013 5:51am

Human rights groups say the US may be guilty of war crimes after finding evidence of civilian deaths.

Leading human rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have raised serious concerns about the legality of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.

The two organisations have conducted separate investigations into specific strikes to highlight how civilians are being killed. Such killings, they claim, are a violation of international law.

The groups say the US must investigate all drone attacks that kill civilians and those responsible for such ‘unlawful killings’ should be disciplined or prosecuted.

The Amnesty report, Will I be next? US drone strikes in Pakistan, names a group of 18 labourers, including a 14-year-old boy, killed in a drone attack on Pakistan in July 2012. This is the first time that all victims of the strike have been identified.

The group of men had been gathered for their evening meal when the first strike hit. In July field research by the Bureau found that this strike was then followed by another attack that killed rescuers trying to retrieve bodies. This was confirmed by Amnesty’s research.

The Human Rights Watch report, Between a Drone and Al-Qaeda, looks at attacks in Yemen and similarly highlights incidents where civilians were killed. It looks at six strikes that together killed 82 people, including at least 57 civilians.

The strikes investigated included a drone-assisted airstrike on a passenger van which killed 12 civilians. Human Rights Watch spoke to 23-year-old Ahmad al-Sabooli, whose father, mother and 10-year-old sister was killed.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/10/22/human-rights-groups-say-civilian-drone-deaths-violate-international-law/

Amnesty also says that Germany helped the US with 'illegal' drone attacks.

The report accuses Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government of providing the US intelligence service with data on drone targets, including the mobile phone numbers of victims.

According to information provided by retired Pakistani intelligence officials, relating to this year and 2012, “secret services in Germany and in other European states have worked together with the USA and its drone program in Pakistan”.

The Amnesty report stated: “With the deployment of armed drones, the USA has once again broken international law. Some of the attacks even amount to war crimes.”

Verena Harpe from the German branch of Amnesty International condemned the programme as “a license to kill, which completely ignores human rights standards and international law.”

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20131022-52515.html

So Obama has killed lots and lots of people who were not involved in armed activity and posed no threat to US. The constant buzzing in the sky from drones is also said to traumatise the local population.

“The tragedy is that drone aircraft deployed by the USA over Pakistan now instill the same kind of fear in the people of the tribal areas that was once associated only with al-Qa’ida and the Taliban,”

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/usa-must-be-held-account-drone-killings-pakistan-2013-10-22

The drone program like much of US foreign policy is incredibly shortshighted. Drones are not going to stop further terrorist attacks against Americans, they will just create more enemies than the US can deal with.

cyberhog · 28-10-2013 6:13am

More on the story of drones, by the people who live under them.

"Because drones are at a certain remove, there is a sense of uncertainty, a sense that you can't control this," Tahir says, describing the attitude among the people who live in Waziristan. Already haunted by the legacy of British colonialism and the laws it left behind, this part of the Tribal Areas is now ruled with a brutal fist by the Pakistani military and various insurgent groups. But the buzz of the drones, sometimes seven or eight overhead a day, signals another kind of indeterminate power. "Whether its true or not, people feel that with militants there is some degree of control. You can negotiate. There is some cause and effect. But there is no cause and effect with drones. It's an acute kind of trauma that is not limited to the actual attack."

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/wounds-of-waziristan-the-story-of-drones-by-the-people-who-live-under-them-video

Communities in Yemen are also being subjected to the same psychological torture.

Peter Schaapveld, a psychologist sent by British Charity REPRIVE to south Yemen to investigate the symptoms, uncovered some dire statistics.

Out of his pool of survivors, he found 70 percent to be suffering from formal post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and virtually all were suffering from some symptoms of PTSD.

Schaapveld warns that as long as they continue living under a drone threat, their symptoms will only worsen.

"There is basically a breakdown of society as a result of this," he said. "Children were not going to school, or if they were the school teachers did not understand PTSD and sent them home. They were not benefiting from an education, and this is storing up problems for later."

"Where there was a strike on the market area, daily commerce was starting to break down," Schaapveld added. "People were not going to the markets, because to meet in those areas meant they might be subject to another strike."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/06/201365122319329623.html

Once again the US proves it can be just as brutal as any dictatorship. Not only are Obama's drones killing many innocent civilians they are also making children too afraid to go to school and adults unable to work. The US is clearly guilty of collective punishment on the civilian populace in these countries.

Amerika · 28-10-2013 1:12pm

I don’t condemn the Obama administration’s use of drones. But I don’t get the utter hypocrisy. Is there any doubt that if the current drone policy were executed by the George W Bush administration, democrats, the media, experts, and most of the international community would be demanding Bush and Cheney be delivered to The Hague to stand trial for crimes against humanity? Instead, we have the mouse that roared with little more than token admonishment against the Obama administration.

Jonny7 · 28-10-2013 1:32pm

The Bush admin took the primary decisions which led to the current situation

People blame Obama's handling of the issue, however they see it as a headache that was inherited rather than instigated

Be like Nutella · 28-10-2013 2:00pm

Unmanned: America's Drone Wars - streams Oct 30th - here's the link
http://unmanned.warcosts.com/

Be like Nutella · 28-10-2013 2:55pm

1976 U.S. President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905, Section 5(g), which states “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.” President Reagan followed up to make the ban clearer in Executive Order 12333. Section 2.11 of that Order states “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Section 2.12 further says “Indirect participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.” This ban on assassination still stands.

Assassination by the US government has been illegal since 1976

Drone killings are acts of premeditated murder. These murders are also the textbook definition of assassination, which is murder by sudden or secret attack for political reasons.

_______________________________

Of 67,844 global terror deaths in last 5 yrs,

84 were Americans

2008: 33 of 15,709
2009: 9 of 15,311
2010: 15 of 13,193
2011: 17 of 12,533
2012: 10 of 11,098

According to the current US Military Law of War Deskbook, the law of war allows killing only when consistent with four key principles: military necessity, distinction, proportionality, and humanity. These principles preclude both direct targeting of civilians and medical personnel but also set out how much “incidental” loss of civilian life is allowed. Some argue precision-guided weapons like drones can be used only when there is no probable cause of civilian deaths. But the US military disputes that burden and instead directs “all practicable precautions” be taken to weigh the anticipated loss of civilian life against the advantages expected to be gained by the strike.

Even using the more lenient standard, there is little legal justification of deliberately allowing the killing of civilians who are “incidental” to the killings of people whose identities are unknown.

___________________________

Retired US Army Colonel Ann Wright

“These drones, you might as well just call them assassination machines. That is what these drones are used for: targeted assassination, extrajudicial ultimate death for people who have not been convicted of anything.”

retired Director of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center Robert Grenier

“One wonders how many Yemenis may be moved in the future to violent extremism in reaction to carelessly targeted missile strikes, and how many Yemeni militants with strictly local agendas will become dedicated enemies of the West in response to US military actions against them.”

There is incredible danger in allowing US military and civilians to murder people anywhere in the world with no public or Congressional or judicial oversight. This authorizes the President and the executive branch, according to the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, to be prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.

Drone strikes in Pakistan have NOT made the USA any safer. They have created a deep pool of hatred and vengeance, of fathers without sons and sons without fathers. So many of those droned were not even known by name to the CIA before they were destroyed.

• Osama Haqqani
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 21/08/2012
• Waheed Ullah
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 31/10/2011
• Atif
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 22/04/2011
• Naeem Ullah
Child, 10, Reported civilian, Died 18/10/2010
• Naila
Child, 10, Reported civilian, Died 24/02/2010
• Ayeesha
Child, 3, Reported civilian, Died 08/01/2010
• Wajid Noor
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 03/01/2010
• Syed Wali Shah
Child, 7, Reported civilian, Died 21/08/2009
• Noor Syed
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 14/02/2009
• Azaz-ur-Rehman
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 23/01/2009
• Khalilullah
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Najibullah
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Baacha Rahman
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Shaukat
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Hizbullah
Child, 10, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Kitab Gul
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Talha
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Naimatullah
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Shehzad Gul
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Wilayat Khan
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Qari Almzeb
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Saifullah
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Khalid
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Noor Mohammad
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Ilyas
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Sohail
Child, 7, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Asadullah
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Shoaib
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Ismail
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Jamshed Khan
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Alam Nabi
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Rahmatullah
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Jannatullah
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Luqman
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Mohammad Salim
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Bakht Muneer
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Numair
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Darvesh
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Noor Aziz
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 01/12/2005

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/namingthedead/the-dead/?sorted-by=newest-to-oldest&gender=child&location=any&reported_status=any&lang=en

Jonny7 · 28-10-2013 3:19pm

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Drone killings are acts of premeditated murder.

Therefore firing shells at the enemy is also premeditated murder

AKA all war is premeditated murder

Be like Nutella · 28-10-2013 3:21pm

If you've re-read your post and stand by it then I can't debate with you if you genuinely think they are the same thing? The logical disconnect is horrendous.

Jonny7 · 28-10-2013 3:21pm

Be like Nutella wrote: »

• Osama Haqqani
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 21/08/2012
• Waheed Ullah
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 31/10/2011
• Atif
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 22/04/2011
• Naeem Ullah
Child, 10, Reported civilian, Died 18/10/2010
• Naila
Child, 10, Reported civilian, Died 24/02/2010
• Ayeesha
Child, 3, Reported civilian, Died 08/01/2010
• Wajid Noor
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 03/01/2010
• Syed Wali Shah
Child, 7, Reported civilian, Died 21/08/2009
• Noor Syed
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 14/02/2009
• Azaz-ur-Rehman
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 23/01/2009
• Khalilullah
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Najibullah
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Baacha Rahman
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Shaukat
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Hizbullah
Child, 10, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Kitab Gul
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Talha
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Naimatullah
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Shehzad Gul
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Wilayat Khan
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Qari Almzeb
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Saifullah
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Khalid
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Noor Mohammad
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Ilyas
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Sohail
Child, 7, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Asadullah
Child, 9, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Shoaib
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Ismail
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Jamshed Khan
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Alam Nabi
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Rahmatullah
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Jannatullah
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Luqman
Child, 12, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Mohammad Salim
Child, 11, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Bakht Muneer
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Numair
Child, 14, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Darvesh
Child, 13, Reported civilian, Died 30/10/2006
• Noor Aziz
Child, 8, Reported civilian, Died 01/12/2005

Not having a go here Nutella, any death from that pointless conflict is a tragedy, however to single out certain deaths and ignore others does come across as partisan thinking

We don't hear about deaths caused by Pakistan military nor the militants themselves - this far exceeds the deaths and injuries caused by drones

Be like Nutella · 28-10-2013 3:26pm

the point of listing some of the children who were blown up by drones by joystick 7000 miles away was twofold: 1) they're kids and that's disgusting and morally abhorrent and 2) I wanted people to notice how many of those kids died on the same day in one single strike.

Jonny7 · 28-10-2013 3:26pm

Be like Nutella wrote: »

If you've re-read your post and stand by it then I can't debate with you if you genuinely think they are the same thing? The logical disconnect is horrendous.

The Pakistan military is in a war with militants

It has the option of using airstrikes, artillery and frontal assault

All of which are far worse than the use of drones to fight these militants.

Pakistan officials tacitly allow the US to fight this war with them and for them and in this way, whilst their politicians decry this in order to score political points

Jonny7 · 28-10-2013 3:30pm

Be like Nutella wrote: »

the point of listing some of the children who were blown up by drones by joystick 7000 miles away was twofold: 1) they're kids and that's disgusting and morally abhorrent and 2) I wanted people to notice how many of those kids died on the same day in one single strike.

Selective outrage

Why is more abhorrent than the killing of civilians in far higher numbers with much worse weaponry?

If a house in a village contains militants it is preferential not to engage, however if it has to be done, which is the more effective weapon -

a guided missile specifically redesigned to do a contained surgical strike

a ground to ground missile with a cruder payload and far less accuracy

an artillery strike

The first option is by far the best option for such a scenario barring a perfect world where it doesn't have to happen

Be like Nutella · 28-10-2013 3:34pm

This is not a debate about the Pakistani military or any other nation who is in a live fire conflict in its own territory which is its own business and a totally different subject. This is only about the 350-400 US Drone attacks which have been carried out in the last 10 years which have happened in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen in areas which cannot be reasonably considered areas of armed conflict between the US and an enemy. The vast majority of drone attacks have been 'signature strikes' which I am sure you are aware of, which is a strike carried out from 7000 miles away on an unknown person or group of people which will in most cases result in loss of innocent life i.e. collateral damage and in the vast majority of cases will not kill any type of AQ or Taliban leader but instead kills low level 'troops', innocent by standers, family members, women and kids all of whom make no damn difference to the overall military/anti-terrorist objective. Firing shells in a live conflict is not similar in any way to flying a robotic drone from 7000 miles away to a location inside a state with which you are not at war to fire missile on people whom you don't even know the identity of which will very likely in almost every case kill innocent by standers, all based on a hunch using a very lax set of rules which allow you to target and basically surprise assassinate people based on whether they match up with a rule book/playbook you have.

Be like Nutella · 28-10-2013 3:36pm

I don't think there is a physical difference between killing somebody with a shell or blowing them up with a hellfire missile from a drone, no. But that has nothing to do with anything.

Be like Nutella · 28-10-2013 3:38pm

I also agree with you that blowing up thousands of more people is bad, again nothing to do with anything.

Be like Nutella · 28-10-2013 3:39pm

Of 67,844 global terror deaths in last 5 yrs,

84 were Americans

2008: 33 of 15,709
2009: 9 of 15,311
2010: 15 of 13,193
2011: 17 of 12,533
2012: 10 of 11,098

0.12 of 1% of global deaths by terrorism

where is the proportionality?

Be like Nutella · 28-10-2013 3:41pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

It has the option of using airstrikes, artillery and frontal assault

untrue

Amerika · 28-10-2013 3:41pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

The Bush admin took the primary decisions which led to the current situation

People blame Obama's handling of the issue, however they see it as a headache that was inherited rather than instigated

Of course the Obama drone policy is Bush’s fault. The Obama administration deserves no culpability. Why would anyone think otherwise! Never mind Obama has not just continued some of the same anti-terrorism policies as the Bush administration, but has actually expanded upon them. Obama has authorized more than 300 overseas drone strikes against suspected terrorists as president compared to the roughly 50 strikes under Bush. And I don’t recall the Bush administration claiming that they had the power to assassinate any person, including American citizens on American soil, because they merely suspected them of being involved in a terrorist plot… as the current administration claims. Nor do I remember Bush claiming his actions, unlike the broad new powers being asserted by Obama, not being subject to any oversight by Congress or the judiciary or international law.

Be like Nutella · 28-10-2013 3:48pm

I thought Bush and Cheney and the neocon string pullers i.e. Wolfy, Perle etc were all global embarrassments and caused massive harm to human civilization as a whole not to mention the idiotic cringe fest that Bush Jr was in the eyes of every sentient human on earth however, Obama is to blame for the drone war, not bush - Obama took the 'easier' drone option and ran with it thanks to a few people around him who convinced him when he came into office that he could no longer politically argue boots on the ground anywhere anymore and so drones were the way to go, as long as they were kept quiet, and on a leash - neither of which happened in the end - although they were kept mostly quiet and away from the press who had no clue about drones until last few years. Anyway point being - Obama is certainly personally to blame for the overuse and abuse of drones as weapons and the 4-5000 people who have been blown up by them so far, the vast majority under his orders and watch. Of that number it is thought only 50 or so AQ and Taliban guys of any real worth have been killed.

Jonny7 · 28-10-2013 4:05pm

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I don't think there is a physical difference between killing somebody with a shell or blowing them up with a hellfire missile from a drone, no. But that has nothing to do with anything.

I think you are missing my point here

A shell is far more inaccurate and likely to cause a lot of innocent casualties, this is something we've seen to hideous effect on the suburbs of Homs and Aleppo in Syria

A drone is a more surgical weapon

If the job is going to be done anyway, it's a far "safer' weapon by a country mile

Jonny7 · 28-10-2013 4:11pm

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I thought Bush and Cheney and the neocon string pullers i.e. Wolfy, Perle etc were all global embarrassments and caused massive harm to human civilization as a whole not to mention the idiotic cringe fest that Bush Jr was in the eyes of every sentient human on earth however, Obama is to blame for the drone war, not bush - Obama took the 'easier' drone option and ran with it thanks to a few people around him who convinced him when he came into office that he could no longer politically argue boots on the ground anywhere anymore and so drones were the way to go, as long as they were kept quiet, and on a leash - neither of which happened in the end - although they were kept mostly quiet and away from the press who had no clue about drones until last few years. Anyway point being - Obama is certainly personally to blame for the overuse and abuse of drones as weapons and the 4-5000 people who have been blown up by them so far, the vast majority under his orders and watch. Of that number it is thought only 50 or so AQ and Taliban guys of any real worth have been killed.

Where do you get these figures from?

Drone Strikes

Comments