• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
A U.S. drone strike in January targeting a suspected al Qaeda compound in Pakistan inadvertently killed an American and Italian being held hostage by the group, senior Obama administration officials said.
The killing of American development expert Warren Weinstein and Italian aid worker Giovanni Lo Porto is the first known instance in which the U.S. has accidentally killed a hostage in a drone strike.
The mishap represents a major blow to the Central Intelligence Agency and its covert drone program in Pakistan, which President Barack Obama embraced and expanded after coming to office in 2009.
Click to expand...


Read more @: American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January

Incredibly unfortunate. One of the major problems with our drone war program, incredibly difficult to verify who you are targeting, and confirming if the target was killed or who else was killed by the strike. RIP, and thoughts go out to the families.

 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January

Incredibly unfortunate. One of the major problems with our drone war program, incredibly difficult to verify who you are targeting, and confirming if the target was killed or who else was killed by the strike. RIP, and thoughts go out to the families.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

It is certainly much more precise than other types of at-distance warfare. But if you prefer sending in troops, it is another matter all together.
 
joG said:
It is certainly much more precise than other types of at-distance warfare. But if you prefer sending in troops, it is another matter all together.
Click to expand...

Im actually in favor of ending our drone war program as it currently stands.
 
joG said:
It is certainly much more precise than other types of at-distance warfare. But if you prefer sending in troops, it is another matter all together.
Click to expand...

Sending in special forces (for example in the case of Bin Laden) would appear to be more effective both in terms of getting the guy you intend to get and in terms of not killing scores of innocents in the process. It amazes me that neither of these seem to be a priority.
 
Funny how the OP and the accompanying article place the blame at the feet of the CIA as opposed to the President who authorizes all of these drone strikes. If an American, just out doing their job or minding their own business, happens to kill a fellow American mistakenly or completely by accident, they're likely to be charged with negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. I guess being an irresponsible President gives you a get our of jail free card.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January

Incredibly unfortunate. One of the major problems with our drone war program, incredibly difficult to verify who you are targeting, and confirming if the target was killed or who else was killed by the strike. RIP, and thoughts go out to the families.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

This is why "boots on the ground" is often better than "guns in the sky". There's no hard and fast "one size fits all" solution to these kind of situations, but this does illustrate why we still need hard men, doing a hard job to go in handle certain situations. The tough part is figuring out when to use which tactic. In this case, we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to guide us, so it's obvious that the wrong tactic was used. What's needed is a clearer set of standards to determine when to kill the bad guys from far away and when to get up close and personal.
 
Red_Dave said:
Sending in special forces (for example in the case of Bin Laden) would appear to be more effective both in terms of getting the guy you intend to get and in terms of not killing scores of innocents in the process. It amazes me that neither of these seem to be a priority.
Click to expand...

Thats because not only is sending in a spec ops team more expensive, it also is more risky. Its cheaper and less risky just to drone strike targets because if something goes wrong, all you lose is the drone...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Im actually in favor of ending our drone war program as it currently stands.
Click to expand...

The key here is the phrase "as it stands". Simply ending it completely isn't the answer since there are situations where a drone strike is absolutely the best solution. What we need is a solution that fixes the current program's shortcomings. Simply tossing the whole nine yards isn't the answer, we need to fix the problems and make drones functional weapons in the right situations.
 
PoS said:
Thats because not only is sending in a spec ops team more expensive, it also is more risky. Its cheaper and less risky just to drone strike targets because if something goes wrong, all you lose is the drone...
Click to expand...

And scores of innocent lives.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Funny how the OP and the accompanying article place the blame at the feet of the CIA as opposed to the President who authorizes all of these drone strikes. If an American, just out doing their job or minding their own business, happens to kill a fellow American mistakenly or completely by accident, they're likely to be charged with negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. I guess being an irresponsible President gives you a get our of jail free card.
Click to expand...

Yep, it does. We gave one to Bush, too!
 
PoS said:
Thats because not only is sending in a spec ops team more expensive, it also is more risky. Its cheaper and less risky just to drone strike targets because if something goes wrong, all you lose is the drone...
Click to expand...

It's also less adaptable to changing situations. With a drone, your options are pretty much binary (there's a bit of flexibility, but not much): Complete the mission exactly as planned or abort it. With an SO team, you can adapt on the fly to changing situations.
 
faithful_servant said:
The key here is the phrase "as it stands". Simply ending it completely isn't the answer since there are situations where a drone strike is absolutely the best solution. What we need is a solution that fixes the current program's shortcomings. Simply tossing the whole nine yards isn't the answer, we need to fix the problems and make drones functional weapons in the right situations.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Jesus would be an advocate of the predator drone program.
 
faithful_servant said:
The key here is the phrase "as it stands". Simply ending it completely isn't the answer since there are situations where a drone strike is absolutely the best solution. What we need is a solution that fixes the current program's shortcomings. Simply tossing the whole nine yards isn't the answer, we need to fix the problems and make drones functional weapons in the right situations.
Click to expand...

Drones were initially designed as a war zone recognizance tool and, when armed, as a war zone weapon. This President has turned drones into vehicles of assassination outside of war zones. That's where the problem lies.
 
Red_Dave said:
Sending in special forces (for example in the case of Bin Laden) would appear to be more effective both in terms of getting the guy you intend to get and in terms of not killing scores of innocents in the process. It amazes me that neither of these seem to be a priority.
Click to expand...

Also, training soldiers is much less expensive.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Drones were initially designed as a war zone recognizance tool and, when armed, as a war zone weapon. This President has turned drones into vehicles of assassination outside of war zones. That's where the problem lies.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. My first impression of the drone is reonassaince/surgical-striking.

And surgical strikes =\= assassination as far as I'm concerned.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January

Incredibly unfortunate. One of the major problems with our drone war program, incredibly difficult to verify who you are targeting, and confirming if the target was killed or who else was killed by the strike. RIP, and thoughts go out to the families.

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

We have a terrible situation we have backed ourselves into with decades of a costly, confusing and hypocritical foreign policy. We either continue with a Constitutionally questionable drone assassination program or we continue with a Constitutionally questionable conventional based conflict and/or war with just about anyone in the region program. Obama is not entirely to blame for why conditions are what they are.

Either way we risk killing plenty of innocents, either way there is a cost (granted the former is far less than the latter,) and either way there is the consequence of ensuring plenty of future generations consider the US as untrustworthy hypocrites.

For the purposes of this discussion there is no real way to ensure that these hostages would have survived a drone strike, a risky extraction process, paying some ransom or agreeing to some condition, or otherwise. The harsh reality is there is no guarantee once we are talking about al Qaeda or ISIS held hostages, no matter what we do.

That does not make the drone strike right, just means we have an even bigger problem to discuss here that boils down to a foreign policy that gets us into significant problems.
 
PoS said:
Thats because not only is sending in a spec ops team more expensive, it also is more risky. Its cheaper and less risky just to drone strike targets because if something goes wrong, all you lose is the drone...
Click to expand...

ANd conventional means result in even more "collateral damage"
 
Red_Dave said:
Sending in special forces (for example in the case of Bin Laden) would appear to be more effective both in terms of getting the guy you intend to get and in terms of not killing scores of innocents in the process. It amazes me that neither of these seem to be a priority.
Click to expand...

That is fine until you loose the people and they are paraded around a square and burned alive on TV.
 
Part of the local problem can also be attributed to Pakistan, which officially forbids US ground ops on its territory, officially forbids US drone strikes, and oftentimes simply refuses to mount an internal capture operation.

Obama himself articulated the current US drone-strike policy which demands that the CIC sign-off an every potentially lethal strike. From previous reports by insiders on how the system works, Obama is informed in real-time of approximately how many people are within the kill/casualty zones besides the intended target. The strike-calculus then rests with him alone. The reports also say that he will generally not sign-off on a strike where collateral deaths/injuries are likely to occur. The one contrary instance I am aware of is his approval of a strike on a HVT with the knowledge that the target's wife would probably also perish. She did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom