U.S. Drone Strikes Are Illegal and More Sinister Than Most Americans Realize

Your thoughts?

Even the mere perception that the United States is violating international law and committing war crimes with its drone attacks is likely to create violent blowback against the United States. Nearly every Islamic terrorist who has engaged in high-profile attacks against the United States has cited violent American foreign policy in the Islamic world as the impetus. This includes Osama bin Laden, Ramzi Yousef, Richard Reid, and Faisal Shahzad. According to Human Rights Watch, Yemenis increasingly fear the United States and their own government more than AQAP. According to Amnesty International, many Pakistani residents of North Waziristan live in constant “fear and stress” due to the drone attacks.
Such psychological stress combined with the deaths of civilians could spawn the next wave of terrorism, and this will likely lead to increased U.S. drone strikes. Obama's drone program is creating a vicious circle of death.

Click to expand...

U.S. Drone Strikes Are Illegal and More Sinister Than Most Americans Realize - PolicyMic

Obama's drone program is creating a vicious circle of death.

Click to expand...

I would argue that our disproportinate response to 9-11 is creating perpetual war.

Drones are part of it, but so the land wars in Iraq/Afg, and to a goodly extent Libya, are all a boost to jihad.
We've manged to exceed bin_Laden's wildest dreams

RDS said:

Your thoughts?



U.S. Drone Strikes Are Illegal and More Sinister Than Most Americans Realize - PolicyMic

Click to expand...

I think that is a very nice theory that if we just stopped drone attacks the terrorist would go away and not bother anyone ever again. But that is not the way the real world operates. The terrorist would take that as a sign of weakness on the U.S. part and in all likely hood increase their attacks. There is no easy answers. There are some of their organizations that if we made nice they would reciprocate. But way too many wouldn't and would take advantage of the time given to upgrade their organization and make it more lethal than they are now.

I think we need to take these organizations individually and see if something couldn't be worked out one by one. Those who refuse, drone on, those who want to cooperate, stop the drones. But think if we just stopped the drones all of them would become peaceful goat herders or something is a bit naive.

I am extremely happy that, because of drones, there's not a terrorist anywhere in the world that can go to bed at night absolutely sure that he will wake up in the morning.

What's the difference between an UAV aka "drone" ( Predator, Reaper, etc.) than a FA-18, A-10, B-2 bomber or an AC-130 ?
They are all piloted by one individual, some from whith in the cockpit of the aircraft while the UAV's are piloted from ten thousands miles away.

I believe the "Law of Nations", and the Geneva Convention and the Hague who have amended the "Law of Nations" which history has shown us that socialist have always ignored and criminals laugh at. But the laws of war are explained what can be done and not.

As some have said, Barack Obama has written the rules on how UAV's can be used and every other sovereign nation and criminal organization can use UAV's in the same way.

BTW: The Obama adminstration changed the deffinition of who is a lawful enemy combatant. If your close enough to be killed or wounded by a Hellfire missile attack, the Obama administration has classified you as a combatant.
That what they did.

Wiggen said:

I am extremely happy that, because of drones, there's not a terrorist anywhere in the world that can go to bed at night absolutely sure that he will wake up in the morning.

Click to expand...

Some radical socialist who just came to power may decide to have his "Night of the Knifes" eliminate the undesirables who helped him to be put in power and take you out at a bus stop using a UAV, how does that grab you ?

It happened more than a few times in recent history, Stalin, Hitler, etc. Having UAV's would have made it a lot easier.

Nonsensical example. If I was blowing up civilians in that radial socialist's country, I'd have it coming. If this was a Republican administration killing terrorists, you'd be doing cartwheels. Because it's - gasp - Barack Obama, you hate it. A late entry in the 'Worst Analogy of the Year' contest. Congratulations for qualifying for the finals.

Wiggen said:

Nonsensical example. If I was blowing up civilians in that radial socialist's country, I'd have it coming. If this was a Republican administration killing terrorists, you'd be doing cartwheels. Because it's - gasp - Barack Obama, you hate it. A late entry in the 'Worst Analogy of the Year' contest. Congratulations for qualifying for the finals.

Click to expand...

If there was a Republican administration in power in America, America wouldn't be moving towards being a radical socialist country.

Executive branches of government wouldn't be targeting political adversaries, listening in on your phone calls, reading your e-mails, telling you what you must purchase, calling fines taxes and allowing American citizens to be murdered so a President could be reelected and given a second chance to continue being incompetent.

RDS said:

Your thoughts?



U.S. Drone Strikes Are Illegal and More Sinister Than Most Americans Realize - PolicyMic

Click to expand...

As usual HRW and the like have done a fairly poor job at war analysis and reporting. I'll repost from another thread:

That is totally unsubstantiated and weighs strongly against the facts that have been collected. The claim that we kill more innocents than terrorists is probably the least supported of all, and in fact drones probably have some of the greatest militant to civilian casualty ratios of any comparable weapon or tactic in our arsenal, they have been rather remarkable tools. The Long War Journal and the New America Foundation two of the more prominent think tanks and news outlets that cover drone strikes have created detailed and meticulous data on US drone strikes, with a specific focus on Pakistan. In particular the Long War Journal is critically acclaimed for its contacts among Pakistani and Waziri media. They both have estimates for militant lows and highs and civilian lows and highs, they break down as 1,600-2,800 and 150-190 respectively. This makes sense if you think about it because drones have the capacity to loiter on a target for an enormous period of time which over the past decade has vastly increased our capacity for observing and discerning militant and civilian targets and allowed us to deliver much smaller warheads to targets with an increased degree of confidence.

The notion that we are killing hundreds of civilians in drone strikes is a myth pushed along by elements of the Pakistani media, and a self-flagellating narrative. It is totally unsupported by the facts. This was particularly supported by the Associated Press which did wide ranging research and interviews inside FATA which massively discredited Pakistani media and civil society groups: AP IMPACT: New light on drone war's death toll - Boston.com

The Long War Journal - Charts on US Strikes in Pakistan
The Year of the Drone | NewAmerica.net

Moreover lets move to the next argument which involves their efficacy and their impact on civilians. The first and most salient point is that since so few civilians are killed it actually has had an incredibly reduced impact on the civilian population at large compared to lets say the Pakistani Army offensives which aimed to accomplish the same thing. In fact drone strikes are more opposed outside FATA than inside them eight times more supportive, and only a minority 48% think they are killing civilians frequently which is in stark contrast to the rest of the country ("Four Myths about Drone Strikes" by By Shehzad H. Qazi & Shoaib Jillani). Many journalists have substantiated this point in field research, with several Afghani/Pakistani native journalists working for FP going to Waziristan and reporting on the efficacy of drone strikes and the fact that many in the tribal belt actually support them as a superior means than the Pakistani military or air strikes.

Finally the most repeated claim, and the one with almost no evidence to support it is that we are merely creating new terrorists or militants. This trope has become pervasive over the last decade, but it rarely has any evidence in fact and shows no understanding for the demographics of militant groups, their recruitment pools, or the situation they are involved in. A detailed study by the RAND corporation between 2004-2010 found that there was a negative correlation between drone strikes and militant recruitment. In other words there is no evidence at all that drone strikes or the lack thereof had an impact on recruitment and that other factors as is usual contributed to this (http://patrickjohnston.info/materials/drones.pdf).

To sum up my position I'll quote Zmarak Yousefzai, a US based Afghan and Pakistani national security expert writes: "Nevertheless, by yet another comparison of hypocrisy, those who are loudest about casualties from U.S. drone strikes have rarely protested the far higher numbers of civilian casualties as a result of Pakistan Army operations or Taliban violence in the Swat Valley and FATA. Silenced in this double standard are the varying motives of different parties as well as the voice of the Pashtun people in these tribal areas. At least one voice -- that of this native Pashtun -- is speaking out to say that there are serious downsides to these drone strikes, but they may be a necessary evil and the lone option to combat those who are responsible for the severe suffering of our people - like Malala Yousafzai."

Voice of a native son: Drones may be a necessary evil - by Zmarak Yousefzai | The AfPak Channel


Moreover the Pakistani government has very recently conceded that relatively few civilians have died in US drone strikes confirming what most military analysis and eyewitness reports have been saying all along.

"The Ministry of Defense released figures to lawmakers saying that 67 civilians were among 2,227 people killed in 317 drone strikes since 2008. The remainder of those killed were Islamist militants, the ministry said. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/wo...ikes.html?_r=0

RDS said:

Your thoughts?

U.S. Drone Strikes Are Illegal and More Sinister Than Most Americans Realize - PolicyMic

Click to expand...

Islamic extremists would be attacking Western nations on ideological grounds alone either way regardless of our actions. US foreign policy has little to do with it.

Frankly, as far as the "hurt feelings" of tribals living in Pakistan are concerned, "boo hoo." If they don't want to get bombed, they shouldn't be sheltering the damn Taliban.

There was some new numbers put out that drone strikes aren't causing as much collateral damage as reported by the Amnesty types. No one really knows, though I do trust the Long War journal.

What is never taken into account is the term "militants", it's such a wide net that the CIA signature strikes in Pakistan may not really be targeting "hostiles (my term),
but becuse they ARE simply signature strikes, they are inherently unknowable.

Plus this little reported aspect. and the number of "collateral damaged" or just plain poor targeting make the numbers relly unknowable:

On March 17, 2011, four Hellfire missiles, fired from a U.S. drone, slammed into a bus depot in the town of Datta Khel in Pakistan's Waziristan border region. An estimated 42 people were killed. It was just another day in America's so-called war on terror. To most Americans the strike was likely only a one-line blip on the evening news, if they even heard about it at all..........

That day in Datta Khel, the signature behavior was a meeting, or "jirga," which is an assembly of tribal elders who convene to settle a local dispute. In this case, a conflict over a chromite mine was being resolved. And, in fact, the elders had informed the Pakistani army about the meeting 10 days in advance. "So this was an open, public event that pretty much everyone in the community and surrounding area knew about," says Stanford law professor James Cavallaro in the video.

Pretty much everyone in the community and surrounding area. But not U.S. intelligence. Or the head of the CIA. Or the president. Or the guy in Virginia or Nevada or some other undisclosed location pressing the button on the drone controller.

And so, almost all the tribal elders of the area were killed by the drone missiles. Akbar Ahmed is a retired Pakistani ambassador to the UK and now a professor at American University. "It's feeding into the sense that no one is safe, nowhere is safe, nothing is safe," he says in the video. "Even a jirga, the most cherished, the most treasured institution of the tribal areas. So we cannot even sit down and resolve an issue -- that is not safe anymore." As professor Cavallaro put it, "the loss of 40 leaders on a single day is devastating for that community."

And far from building stability in places like Pakistan, something the administration talks a lot about, in fact the strike actually removed, in one fell swoop, the most stabilizing forces in an entire community.
'Signature Strikes' and the President's Empty Rhetoric on Drones | Arianna Huffington

Click to expand...

The BIGGER PICTURE is that these drone srikes undermine any attempt as 'pacification' of the population, or our so called "transition" out of Afganistan.

The signature strikes are more problematic, under-reported, and do terrorize the locals. IMHO they are the equivalent of War Crimes.

... force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war -- through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments -- will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

Click to expand...

Obama May speech at National Defense Univ.

Analysis: Drone discrepancy
Analysis: Drone discrepancy – The Express Tribune

The Ministry of Defence, in a written statement in the Senate, claimed that no civilians were killed in the US-sponsored drone strikes since 2012 – a day after Rafiqur Rehman told US Congressmen that his mother was killed in a drone strike in October last year.

Another incident cited in a recent Amnesty International report described how 18 labourers was killed by drone strikes as they gathered after a long day of work. That was July 6, 2012. The group was hit twice by hellfire missiles.

Why do these 19 deaths of civilians – non-combatants – caused by drone strikes not feature in the defence ministry figures?

annata said:

I would argue that our disproportinate response to 9-11 is creating perpetual war.

Drones are part of it, but so the land wars in Iraq/Afg, and to a goodly extent Libya, are all a boost to jihad.
We've manged to exceed bin_Laden's wildest dreams

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to only half agree there.

We should have just lined them all up, and shot them. All five million Afghanis. If the Iraqis got uppity afterwards, them too. Except our precious Kurds.

When Julius Ceaser conquered Gual he enslaved one million men women and children, then killed another million men women and children.

Or, you know, just completely level all infrastructure in Afghanistan and we'd be done with it (excluding future reprisals)

Gathomas88 said:

Islamic extremists would be attacking Western nations on ideological grounds alone either way regardless of our actions. US foreign policy has little to do with it.

Frankly, as far as the "hurt feelings" of tribals living in Pakistan are concerned, "boo hoo." If they don't want to get bombed, they shouldn't be sheltering the damn Taliban.

Click to expand...

War slogans such as your's are convenient and generally total lies.

Villagers in Pakistan are as much "sheltering" the Taliban as Jews in concentration camps were sheltering the Gestapo. Those villagers have infinitely more reasons to fear the Taliban than you.

annata said:

I would argue that our disproportinate response to 9-11 is creating perpetual war.

Drones are part of it, but so the land wars in Iraq/Afg, and to a goodly extent Libya, are all a boost to jihad.
We've manged to exceed bin_Laden's wildest dreams

Click to expand...

I agree. Bin Laden and Company knew they could never take us in any military fashion. But they could spin our economy and unity as a nation out of control.
And they accomplished that.

Wiggen said:

I am extremely happy that, because of drones, there's not a terrorist anywhere in the world that can go to bed at night absolutely sure that he will wake up in the morning.

Click to expand...

Kill one, make 50 new enemies. Thats how it works. We are not making any friends in the area. And from a winner of a Nobel Prize for Peace.