Another year, another US war crime that will be selectively ignored in the West

cyberhog

DAWN reports on a US drone strike in North Waziristan that intentionally targeted first responders.

...four people were killed and several others injured in a drone attack in the Mubarak Shahi village in North Waziristan tribal region’s Mir Ali Tehsil.

The US drone targeted a vehicle with two missiles, and then fired another two missiles when rescuers gathered at the site to carry the bodies and the injured.

http://dawn.com/2013/01/03/drone-strike-kills-four-in-s-waziristan-2/

According to the US MARINE CORPS, the nine principles of the law of war are:

· Fight only enemy combatants.
· Do not harm enemies who surrender: disarm them and turn them over to your superior.
· Do not kill or torture prisoners.
· Collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.
· Do not attack medical personnel, facilities, or equipment.
· Do not destroy more than the mission requires.
· Do not steal; respect private property and possessions.
· Do your best to prevent violations of the law of war; report all violations to your superiors, a military lawyer, a chaplain, or provost marshal.


As you can see, two of those priniples have clearly been violated in that drone attack.

The Marines' handbook also argues: "Violations of these principles prejudice the good order and discipline essential to success in combat."

So the Army knows behaving like a barbarian makes it all the more difficult to achieve victory and still the US violates the law of war.

It's like the US is trying not to win the war and create even more enemies. It makes you wonder just WHAT is the game plan?

Be like Nutella

It is a war crime. You are absolutely correct, but this is what they would argue.

- We targeted a person which represented a clear and imminent threat to the US (*and our interests.... WHICH CAN ESSENTIALLY MEAN ANYTHING YOU WANT IT TO MEAN)
- We don't, by law, have to release the legal justification for why we chose to do this strike.... SO GUESS WHAT - WE DON'T SUCK ON IT! (as per recent court ruling against New York Times and ACLU)
- We struck the target a second time to make sure they were killed and not to take out any first responders which just happened to be part of the collateral damage..... CLEARLY THIS MAKES ABSOLUTE SENSE.
- All people killed were at least 15 years of age and male and therefore by our categorization of casualties come under the umbrella of 'Combatants' even though the target did not lie in a 'hot' area of combat nor is part of any war apart form the one we arbitrarily self prescribed called the Global War On Terror.... which most of the Intl community completely disregard as a valid concept.... but ya know... who cares **** it
- We followed the officially accepted decision flow chart which we produced and disseminated to gradually codify these assassinations into the national and global conversation on drone strikes. i.e. we made up the rules, then we followed them, so we played by the rules so whats the fukin problem?

If you HATE drone strikes you HATE American troops and freedom and you p1ss all over the US flag and democracy everywhere.

Drone strikes effectively wipe out ALL terrorism at its source and create no further hatred amongst the 50,000 family/tribal/organizational members of the 3400 people we've assassinated with remote control drones so far..... ahem... obviously.

Drones are the future baby get with the program!

Yet another strike on a 'operationally important leader'.... to go with the other 3400... I suppose.... B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

More Information
More Accountability
Less Secrecy
More Oversight
More Quality coverage by the Media
More Debate

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Imagine you got your hands on all the files for all the strikes.... hmmm... that'd be sweet. Boom - on the net - boom - drone war over, thank you good night.

450 Drone strikes are such a mistake. When are they gona learn.

clairefontaine

Drone strikes are Obama's weapon of choice, using four to five times as many as Bush did. More secrecy, more surveillance, less transparency. Media wont do quality control because they all love Obama, under his spell. Very little critical thought and just acceptance. Dont get it myself.

Plenty on the subject all over google. Even the Guardian is waking up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/02/drone-wars-secrecy-barack-obama

Legal question: Is it officially WAR, if not then do the "rules of war" apply?

Be like Nutella

At least the New York Times is coming down heavy on Obama for not releasing more details of why they kill these people.

NYT

HEADLINE:

Misplaced Secrecy on Targeted Killings

Jan 3, 2013

" ...various government officials have spoken publicly about the American role in killing Mr. Awlaki and the circumstances under which the government considers targeted killings, including of American citizens. At President Obama’s nominating convention last summer, a video prepared by his campaign listed the killing of Mr. Awlaki prominently among Mr. Obama’s national security achievements.
Such a selective and self-serving “public relations campaign,” as the judge termed it, should have been deemed a waiver of the government’s right to withhold its legal rationale from public scrutiny. Moreover, disclosing the document would not have jeopardized national security or revealed any properly classified operational details. The ruling, which is inconsistent with the purpose and history of the information disclosure law, richly deserves overturning on appeal. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/misplaced-secrecy-on-targeted-killings.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&

Secrecy of Memo on Drone Killing Is Upheld - Jan 2, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/judge-rules-memo-on-targeted-killing-can-remain-secret.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

clairefontaine

Awleki is a bit different. He was a US citizen and the controversy around him is whether or not he was entitled to due process rather than treated as an enemy soldier.

The New York Times has vaccilated quite a bit on that case.

http://www.spectacle.org/1011/clark2.html

Be like Nutella

Yes it is a bit different as the legal debate goes, thanks for that argument link there... quite interesting.

But I do disagree with the idea that forces should not engage targets to arrest or attempt to arrest just because there is danger in doing so. That argument brings us down a very dark road in my view.

The reason we 'do it' is 'because it is dangerous' - we commit to upholding principles rather than just pushing buttons and blowing the sh1t out of entire families and funerals and first responders and so forth. We do the necessary investigation and produce proof that somebody is an IMMINENT AND OPERATIONAL RISK DIRECTLY TO THE US and then we commit our guys to go get them and stop them and arrest them and get Intel out of them if possible. The absolute opposite is what Obama's team has been doing. Signature strikes and no attempt to arrest is not the way to go - it does more harm than good. If you are not willing to send in guys to stop an individual because he or she is SUCH AN IMMINENT RISK TO THE US then what gives you the right to blow the MF up along with anyone near him. You can't reconcile that. As I've been saying since I first started posting against drone strikes: Drone strikes are simply - easy... therefore they do them... a lot of them... and they would never have risked guys to attempt to arrest any of the guys they droned therefore they had no right to assassinate them. It is a hypocrisy of moral principle. If you want to argue that none of the 450+ assassinations carried out so far which have killed 3400 people, so far, could have been replaced with attempts to capture and arrest be my guest.

Here's the moral theory as it goes. If these guys were living in Munich or Paris or Barcelona and if those governments completely refused to attempt to capture these guys even though you had brought irrefutable proof to them that they were terrorists who were IMMINENT RISKS TO THE US they STILL wouldn't under any circumstances ever even think about droning these guys. The very simple fact that it is in Pakistan and nobody gives a fuk about lives there makes it possible. The very simple fact that the US population is War Weary means you CANNOT RISK US LIVES NOW makes the drone option easy. The very simple fact that there is NO REPORTING done on the ground where these strikes happen especially by US media means the drone kills are AN EASY OPTION. The whole thing is about how fukin EASY IT IS TO DO - IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. And in my book that don't win the moral or legal or strategic argument. It is clearly wrong on so many levels.

They're just illegally killing replaceable guys and a sh1t load of innocent civilians constantly and planting the seeds of endless hate and vengeance.... because they can... easily... without any fallout.... no media.... no population blowback..... no legal punishment.

clairefontaine

It sure is hard to argue with that. I'm not going to defend Obama. He has increased executive powers to levels that I'm surprised he has gotten away with in such system of checks and balances. Now that he doesn't have to worry about being re elected one can only guess.

My impression is that congress doesn't know what is going on either. That, coupled with the increased militarisation of the CIA doesn't bear thinking about.

What is really scary about it is that it sets the precedent by example for other countries to do the same.

http://rt.com/usa/news/congress-drone-us-rep-026/

Be like Nutella

absolutely - who's to say Russia or China or Turkey won't assume they can now hit who they want where they want with drones once they concoct a reason of their own.... or simply because the media doesn't know about the strikes til after they happen so they may feel they can do what they like when they like where they like.

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

Cork boy 55

cyberhog wrote: »

DAWN reports on a US drone strike in North Waziristan that intentionally targeted first responders.



http://dawn.com/2013/01/03/drone-strike-kills-four-in-s-waziristan-2/

The US drone targeted a vehicle with two missiles, and then fired another two missiles when rescuers gathered at the site to carry the bodies and the injured.

The death toll from the drone strike in North Waziristan was expected to rise, security sources told Dawn.com.

Did this even happen as described?
What is Dawn can it be trusted?
Who are these security sources?

Why would two missiles be fired at one vehicle, one is more than enough?
Don't predator drones only carry two hellfire missiles unless of course multiple drones which is not normal where did the third and fourth missile come from dawn and its security sources claim four fired?
Why would Americans kill "first responders" ,There are that many of these mission and they are all recorded and reviewed?

Cork boy 55

Be like Nutella wrote: »

I
Drone strikes effectively wipe out ALL terrorism at its source and create no further hatred amongst the 50,000 family/tribal/organizational members of the 3400 people we've assassinated with remote control drones so far..... ahem... obviously.

Drones are the future baby get with the program!

Yet another strike on a 'operationally important leader'.... to go with the other 3400... I suppose.... B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

More Information
More Accountability
Less Secrecy
More Oversight
More Quality coverage by the Media
More Debate

The whole thing stinks to high heaven. Imagine you got your hands on all the files for all the strikes.... hmmm... that'd be sweet. Boom - on the net - boom - drone war over, thank you good night.

450 Drone strikes are such a mistake. When are they gona learn.

343 drone strikes with estimates
with number of killed estimated from 1934 to 3239
http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones

Overheal

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Did this even happen as described?
What is Dawn can it be trusted?
Who are these security sources?

Why would two missiles be fired at one vehicle, one is more than enough?
Don't predator drones only carry two hellfire missiles unless of course multiple drones which is not normal where did the third and fourth missile come from dawn and its security sources claim four fired?
Why would Americans kill "first responders" ,There are that many of these mission and they are all recorded and reviewed?

I agree with most of your points. I tried to corroborate the story but multiple sources can't even agree on the casualty count or how many of those casualties were militants. Also I didn't find anyone else describe a vehicular attack or even one where they targeted first responders; another news source even described the targets as houses, stating as many as 10 missiles were deployed. To that end, nothing says it was a MQ-1 Predator drone, or what variant drone it was. For that matter, the actual unclassified (wiki) carrying capacity of the drone is 2 Hardpoints. Each harpoint can carry 2 hellfire (Anti-Armor air-to-ground) missile per hardpoint, but a single MQ-1 drone could then also carry as many as 12 (6+6) Griffin (lower ordnance air-to-ground) missiles. The image below shows the MQ-9, and in-frame there are 4 hellfire missiles (image matches article for hellfire missile, also below) on 2 hardpoints, along with 2 laser-guided bombs which I can't ID definitively but looks like the Paveway II listed in the MQ-9's armament specs. It could have just as easily been an MQ-9 Reaper, a bigger brother of the predator, which has 7 hardpoints (which sounds odd, since in this image it looks like it could have as many as 15, including 1 on the fuselage - but that shows my expertise on miltech) and can carry up to 14 Hellfire missiles. In fight most articles used the image of the MQ-9, the easiest distinction is the tailwings face up, instead of down like on the MQ-1; but again, nobody is really specifying.





Further though to the first responder alleged incident, you might be familiar with the Wikileaks apache video. In that video, the pilots did re-fire on a vehicle that was approached by 'first responders', though the claim was there that they weren't first aid, but there to salvage weapons. Plenty of sketchy things about that video, and plenty of defensible things too, but it should be clearly pointed out here that the people that approached that vehicle weren't exactly marked as medical (+).

Manach

For the strikes within Pakistan, there is the non-legality of operating an effective shot-to-kill policy within a sovereign state without the authorisation of that state. International law is based on various contracting treaties, and by its signature to these the US should behave (and it normally is a first class global citizen) in a manner that respect civilians' human rights. That the US has not signed the convention on the international war crimes court and has pass a bill to effect the armed release of US service personal, in the very unlikely event that there were held by the court, would suggest a one-sided view of war crimes that are held by the US.

Be like Nutella

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

343 drone strikes with estimates
with number of killed estimated from 1934 to 3239
http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones

Are you tellin me my stats are wrong?

Your figure is only for Pakistan and it's prob closer to 359.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/

plus another 60 for Yemen and 15 for Somalia

As for total killed by all Drones yet: You should email Micah Zenko (top drone guy at CFR) and ask him where he got his figs from.

"Whenever a US drone kills a "senior" AQ/Taliban leader, just note that he's roughly the 3,400th person killed by US drones. "

https://twitter.com/MicahZenko/status/286971232300199936

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/12/26/americas-failing-drone-war-in-yemen/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mzenko+%28Micah+Zenko%3A+Politics%2C+Power%2C+and+Preventive+Action%29



that makes 434

and I could argue at least another 50 strikes unless you seriously believe that every drone strike has been reported by the media and therefore recorded by orgs like the B.I.J. etc ?

Overheal

Manach wrote: »

For the strikes within Pakistan, there is the non-legality of operating an effective shot-to-kill policy within a sovereign state without the authorisation of that state. International law is based on various contracting treaties, and by its signature to these the US should behave (and it normally is a first class global citizen) in a manner that respect civilians' human rights. That the US has not signed the convention on the international war crimes court and has pass a bill to effect the armed release of US service personal, in the very unlikely event that there were held by the court, would suggest a one-sided view of war crimes that are held by the US.

I have few doubts that the international policies of the US are a little FUBAR, and if you look at the trend: frankly, the US into the future isn't concerned with war law in the long term since it can effectively fight a war from a joystick and won't have to worry terribly much about leaving soldiers behind to be tortured. a half-baked thought, granted, but when you look at how they approach drone strikes and the law around them..

clairefontaine

Overheal wrote: »

I have few doubts that the international policies of the US are a little FUBAR, and if you look at the trend: frankly, the US into the future isn't concerned with war law in the long term since it can effectively fight a war from a joystick and won't have to worry terribly much about leaving soldiers behind to be tortured. a half-baked thought, granted, but when you look at how they approach drone strikes and the law around them..

It's more than a little worrying how "easy" war might become with the use of drones. You don't even have to face your victim/enemy [not sure what word to use there].

From a joystick is right.

cyberhog

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Did this even happen as described?

The US have been targeting rescuers since 2009.

Between May 2009 and June 2011, at least fifteen attacks on rescuers were reported by credible news media, including the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, ABC News and Al Jazeera.

...A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

What is Dawn can it be trusted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_(newspaper)

Be like Nutella

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:
I want to make sure that people understand, actually, drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties.
(apparently 800 is not a large number)
For the most part, they have been very precise precision strikes against al-Qaeda and their affiliates
(signature strikes hit ANYONE who acted within certain parameters and they were never sure who they hit)
And we are very careful in terms of how it’s been applied.
(prove it COZ IT DON'T SEEM THAT WAY!)
So, I think that there’s this perception somehow that we’re just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly
(450 strikes killing 3400 people rather than attempts to capture would disagree)
This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists who are trying to go in and harm Americans
(show us proof or any semblance of legal justification for specific strikes... oh that's right laws haven't caught up with drone assassinations and any requests get thrown out of court by reluctant judges who note how ****ed up this thing is),
hit American facilities, American bases, and so on. It is important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash.(
well as long as you say so and we just beleive you without asking for evidence or proof or more transparency and democratic accountability in congress you can say what the fuk you want can't you?)


Strikes on first responders

Scroll for vid

http://pacificfreepress.com/news/1/10879-whose-rules-of-engagement-us-drones-target-first-respondersfunerals-.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq34S9HzWz8

THE REPORT
LIVING UNDER DRONES
MASSIVE EFFORT BY STANFORD AND NYU UNIVERSITIES - IF YOU HAVE ANY INTEREST IN UNDERSTANDING THIS THING I HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU READ THIS REPORT. NO OTHER GROUP HAS PUT AS MUCH EFFORT INTO UNDERSTANDING THE DRONE STRIKES AS THESE GUYS. THERE'S A COUPLE OF IRISH ACADEMICS INVOLVED THAT I KNOW OF.

http://livingunderdrones.org/report/

Be like Nutella

IF
they are not willing to send their guys into harms way to attempt to get these Imminent Threats, no matter the political or geographic barriers, then what gives them the right to assassinate these targets with drones where they are?

It simply brings you to a conclusion which says
a) Pakistani and Yemeni lives are worth less and
b) The institutionalization of a large bureaucratic drone program has greased the tracks between

capture/arrest - to kill-list - to green light for strike !

by a process of guilt-delegation, like too little butter on so much toast. Virtually absolving 'politicians to pilots' of blame in a similar manner as Scout/Sniper teams traditionally facilitated less hesitation before trigger squeeze.. and target 'liquidation'.

Wars need heroes! for wars should always be heroic and be fought for great reason. 7000 miles between Creech and Waziristan, and 1.2 second delays between 22 year old joystick-jock-moves, playing PlayStation games inside blacked-out 40 ft containers, with Honda's parked next to them watching grey-scale screen flashes of lives extinguished 1.2 seconds before that...does NOT a picture of heroes, paint. And the whites of the eyes of those they watched so closely and got to know... will return on dark nights years from now.

As history shows us over and over again, with newfangled weaponry - as the profiteers of General Atomics will attest to -

" Build it..... and they will come!"

.... and buy 300 of them.... furiously, as we witness the seemingly complex wheel of the busy busy Military Industrial Complex turn, as predictably as the world itself turns. For it is always in mans basest wants do we find the source of all bad deeds, even ones as seemingly complex as the drone war which Obama's team so desperately try to codify and legally justify, all sucking, in tandem, at the tit of cheap political capital in a context of a War Weary United States.

And while the Hellfires scream like banshees, after the fact of course being supersonic, the sounds of Syrian air defenses being quashed by heroic Laser guided munitions in advance of a morally victorious No Fly Zone which would halt the massacre of 5000 innocent Syrians.... cannot be heard... nor indeed happens at all in fact. Instead, the thumb rubbing at UN buffets and overly complicated International Relations discourse of ignorant forum keyboard warriors, but 2 million 'Facebook likes' does not a murderous leader,
depose.

Alas, the simple 3 word truth will be written on dusty blackboards in lecture halls from Mumbai to Connecticut, when political professors write papers on this period to explain why Silver-Bullet-Golden-Calf-Drone-Strikes happened for so long, without cries from the mob will be, simply because, well

YES WE CAN

CollardGreens

As a born and raised American, I'd like to add my 2 cents.

I am in agreement with most of something everybody has said here. Remember, only half voted for obama, and most believe the election was stolen because there were some areas that had only votes for him in it, impossible statically. The person that brought up obama and drowns is correct in that it is his "drug of choice". Real people (mostly) don't have it in them to kill with the push of a button with a drone, only cowards would find killing that way acceptable. Our military are not obama fans, in fact most have quite a dislike for him however they are required to do as he says. The absent military votes were conveniently misplaced and never counted. Both sides of our government are acting like high school rivals and using high school minds making high school decisions and putting lives at stake here and in other countries.

Summary: Please don't judge all Americans by our high school government, I realize that nobody did but wanted those of you that might think so to know.......most of you hit the nail on the head about the killings in the west and the drones. We don't like it anymore than you do. Remember that not all Germans agreed with Hitler either.

Jelle1880

Killing through the use of drones is cowardly ?
Bollocks, any government would choose that option, since it limits the chance of casualties on the ground.

The only issue is that it makes it easier to go into conflict, but that's not exactly something the US has bothered about too much.

As for those military votes not being counted:

http://factcheck.org/2012/11/did-undelivered-military-ballots-give-election-to-obama/

Be like Nutella

You definitely have my interest with the absent military votes issue.... and the areas of only Obama votes. Bit of reading to do on that so.

I like the high school rivals analogy I actually haven't heard that one yet and it's perfect!

I for one don't paint the American adult public with the one brush nor the same brush as I paint the Exec branch of the government and Obama's team. There's a lot of players in this thing.

Hand picked Kiss ass Attorney Generals. Pro-drone guys moving posts between defense and homeland and CIA like musical chairs depending on how loud they sing the team anthem. A $14Bn Californian drone lobby so powerful to make politicians shake in their boots. An ignorant elderly Senate with about as much clue about Drones and their implications as they do about Call of Duty. A frenzied drawn out media fueled big business presidential campaign of lies and hate. A War Weary population of broken soldiers and their families and a backdrop of lies and more lies which got you into Iraq in 2003 and unthanked for it. A reducing middle eastern military footprint and a bunch of sour neocon hawks from the AEI etc as a result of it. A teetering economy and a need for a stable oil market. A ridiculous Israeli lobby with so much voice in Washington it's hard to hear anything above their irrational calls for bombing Iran. And a second term legacy driven president who has to live with some cowardly decisions and commit to them - such as drone strikes. The US is not one character and can't be criticized in a sentence as some sort of whole concept - it is a messy mix of polar opposite interests and over concentration of individual power and never ending campaign style empty rhetoric. The only thing that can be characterized is the history of US foreign policy which is not as movable and changeable as many would have you believe. There are patterns there and there are good and bad things to say about those patterns. This current policy which is a direct result of what Bush 2 did to the IDEA of the US both abroad and to its ashamed self is mistaken and cowardly and brings the US brow down again... if at least for a smaller cost of thousands of lives. I feel for the average intelligent American who is passionate about these issues and cannot for the life of him have his voice represented in the high school level mess which is Washington while the interests who fight powerfully for its attention wreck it to its core.

CollardGreens

Being new here, I can't copy the quotes, but the post #20 was expected. Main Stream Media and the lies they are telling/printing is alive and well. No, it's not a fact, it's what is being told to other countries and right here in the states, but most here don't believe it because we are living it. I do understand folks far away believing what the MSM tells them, their is a saying........IF YOU TELL SOMETHING ENOUGH TIMES, EVENTUALLY PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE IT.

Did you know that the Jews were told by the Germans that they were being put on a train to be taken to safety? How do you think that the Germans got that many people on a train without a fuss? Please don't take this as picking on Germans (I'm mostly German decent myself) but I'm just trying to make a point.

Fact is, there is an uprising right now here in America. People have had enough and that includes our military. Watch and see

Be like Nutella

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Killing through the use of drones is cowardly ?
Bollocks, any government would choose that option, since it limits the chance of casualties on the ground

Overly simplistic utilitarian military logic thankfully does not run the world.

Attacking people from afar with no immediate risk to oneself using a bullsh1t codified decision flow chart based on questionable intel garnered from vengeance seeking tribesmen who attach magnetic GPS devices to random trucks and of those they hate to have them snuffed by drones... all of this is cowardly and if you're willing to put more effort than glib 'Bollocks' comments into this forum I'll debate it with you in depth... to the core and maybe we'll learn something and change stubborn viewpoints a degree or two in the process ?

Jelle1880

CollardGreens wrote: »

Being new here, I can't copy the quotes, but the post #20 was expected. Main Stream Media and the lies they are telling/printing is alive and well. No, it's not a fact, it's what is being told to other countries and right here in the states, but most here don't believe it because we are living it. I do understand folks far away believing what the MSM tells them, their is a saying........IF YOU TELL SOMETHING ENOUGH TIMES, EVENTUALLY PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE IT.

Did you know that the Jews were told by the Germans that they were being put on a train to be taken to safety? How do you think that the Germans got that many people on a train without a fuss? Please don't take this as picking on Germans (I'm mostly German decent myself) but I'm just trying to make a point.

Fact is, there is an uprising right now here in America. People have had enough and that includes our military. Watch and see

Since you're raised American I'm fairly sure you're aware of the difference between popular and electoral votes.

Obama won the electoral votes, and had 5 million more votes in the popular part.

Are there 5 million soldiers stationed abroad ?
Are there any electoral votes in Iraq or Afghanistan ?

So yes, I can believe that there were issues with votes from military personnel stationed abroad.
Would they have influenced the outcome ? Not a chance.

Your 'mainstream media' rant just smacks an easy way out when confronted with a different viewpoint.

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Overly simplistic utilitarian military logic thankfully does not run the world.

Attacking people from afar with no immediate risk to oneself using a bullsh1t codified decision flow chart based on questionable intel garnered from vengeance seeking tribesmen who attach magnetic GPS devices to random trucks and of those they hate to have them snuffed by drones... all of this is cowardly and if you're willing to put more effort than glib 'Bollocks' comments into this forum I'll debate it with you in depth... to the core and maybe we'll learn something and change stubborn viewpoints a degree or two in the process ?

You would rather they send troops into Pakistan to arrest people they feel are a threat ?

Since you seem so set against cowardice, maybe armies should do away with long range artillery, planes, snipers,... ?
After all, they too are aimed at eliminating threats without putting the soldiers themselves in too much danger ?

Drones are simply a next evolution in this.

And yes, I can agree that it makes it a lot easier to just pull a trigger and blow someone up, but you act as if this just happens at random, with no investigation if the target itself is actually legitimate.

The RAND Corporation, an independent think tank has concluded that drone strikes have caused a noticeable decrease in militant attacks and IED/suicide attacks.

By the way, the military doesn't even come in to this, drone strikes are carried out by the CIA.

CollardGreens

Hi Jelle,
Debating is fun, but right now as I write this we have drones here in the states flying over. The rules on this site do not permit me to post what I wish nor am I able too since I'm new. There is so much I would like to say, but we both know that there is also a lot on the internet we both could be posting links to and it could go on for days with nothing resolved.

I'm not republican nor democrat, I'm a free American all for the American Militia as granted in our second amendment by the American Constitution. Our own government is waging war against it's people, right now they are hitting our finances. The saddest part is that they have infiltrated our schools. We are told on TV by a man most do not regard as our legal president that we are not a Christian nation, however according to the founders of this once great nation, we are. This is not something that to me is up for debate.

I whole heartily respect your opinion and feel you are blessed to live in what I can see from the pictures an absolutely beautiful country that I hope to visit soon. I also hope your government values you and your family and respects your rights much more so than our country is doing in these dark days. America is in turmoil with a lot of unrest.

Watch and see, our time is running fast.

Blessings

Be like Nutella

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I'm all for debating this but if you don't want to, so be it.

Virtueless war which requires no courage.

They are not going to make any movies about guys flying predators.

They are too easy to 'decide' to use because of the cowardly lack of immediate risk to oneself which would otherwise temper your actions, and they make war amoral to the executor and bureaucracy which controls that system which sets dangerous precedents for other countries and how they deal with 'threats' in the future. They are as Dr Enemark states the advent of 'POST-HEROIC WAR'.... in other words when wars were fought in the past for great reason (to stop the NAZIs for instance... involved an acceptance of probably a large loss of life on our side and was worth it). Wars require political capital which means they need passionate support from your population who vote for you... but not so... if there are less or NO lives at risk... on your side....therefore Drone War requires by its nature... LESS POLITICAL CAPITAL and therefore makes their use MORE LIKELY... get it? The paradox of riskless war - without risk there is no war... there is nothing separating it from other acts violence.

If you remove a warrior from an environment of risk and fear (like a drone pilot 11000km away from Pakistan sitting in an air conditioned office in Langley CIA HQ Virgina USA) then you break an ancient connection between warriors and war and all that is left is non-courageous killing.

The word Drone has become a colloquial word in Urdu in Pakistan which mocks the US for lack of honor and courage... they taunt the Americans who send robots to do a mans job.

As Michael Haden referred to the effects of drone weapons and their range of kill.... he referred to 'their BUG SPLAT'... so they kill them like insects cowardly operating robots from 11000 km away.

Cowardly bullies.... not the pilots themselves although any human needs to evaluate their own individual actions... I am of course more angry with those which design such system and employ them as party of a badly thought out strategy which will not work.

They kill with impunity and it costs them nothing. THERE IS NO HONOR, DUTY, COURAGE OR SELF SACRIFICE WHICH IS A COVENANT OF WAR AND THE SOCIETY WARS ARE FOUGHT FOR.Now for your ultimately efficient utilitarian rebuttal.
Drone + Pilot = dead Taliban so fuk em and anyone like em yada yada

drquirky

Say what you want about the USA but at least we stood up to fascism in WW2 and we didn't bend over and let the RCC f:)k us and create a theocracy.

Be like Nutella

drquirky wrote: »

Say what you want about the USA but at least we stood up to fascism in WW2 and we didn't bend over and let the RCC f:)k us and create a theocracy.

I think the American Soldiers who fought the Nazis in WW2 are literally the most heroic men who ever lived. Thousands of miles away from their home country. Millions of soldiers risked their lives, 300 thousand killed, 700 thousand injured.

However, you cannot ignore all the fukin dictators the US has propped up and supported and installed and helped and supplied weapons to and lied about since then.

Be like Nutella

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Since you seem so set against cowardice, maybe armies should do away with long range artillery, planes, snipers,... ?
After all, they too are aimed at eliminating threats without putting the soldiers themselves in too much danger ?

Drones are simply a next evolution in this.

And yes, I can agree that it makes it a lot easier to just pull a trigger and blow someone up, but you act as if this just happens at random, with no investigation if the target itself is actually legitimate.

long range artillery, planes, snipersNot comparable to Drones. Congress do not need to vote on sending a drone over a border because no troops are in them. They would for the other tactics/weapons. There is no risk to a soldier in one and there is in another which makes the act of violence more likely and less tempered.

Drones are simply a next evolution in this
I personally do not agree. Drones are an entire new paradigm. They will have unpredictable second tier effects all around the world. They are a disruptive technology and they are an industry unto themselves. They and their use bear no similarity to other weapons systems and legally they are protected by a lack of laws that cover their effects and use. They are an enabling system which has caught the world off guard FOR THE BLATANTLY OBVIOUS FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIKE OTHER WEAPONS!


but you act as if this just happens at random, with no investigation if the target itself is actually legitimate


It may seem like I think that way but I don't in actuality. I respect the detective work done by the CIA and the technology and apparatus at their disposal to attempt to stop terrorists attacking the USA and I think that work is necessary in this post cold war world BUT I know for a fact that many of the targets who have been shredded by Hellfire missiles fired from 4 km away operated from 11000 km away are not even known to the CIA or anyone for that fact as admitted by the US. Signature strikes literally happened as a result of a 'hunch' that some group or individual was a terrorist based on NO INTEL AT ALL... AS ADMITTED... but instead based on the observed movements of said supposed 'imminent threat' from satellites and global hawks using a very loose and arbitrary decision matrix. Somebody getting into a van in an area known to harbor previous Taliban could literally be enough for a sig strike. This is not rational behavior no does it stand up to previously accepted norms. The employed concept of 'Legitimate Target' to the US has been radically twisted by the simple fact that drone strikes have been cheap - politically within a fear induced environment of a self prescribed pseudo-state of Global War which the US subscribes to to rationalize any and every action outside of accepted moral norms. War IS moral. Defending your country from Terrorist attacks by detecting and attempting to stop actual attacks is a moral endeavor. Blowing up 80 kids in a Madras in an attempt to assassinate 1 known terrorist in a sovereign country whose electorate and population do not want you active in IS NOT A MORAL OR TACTICALLY OR STRATEGICALLY SOUND CONCEPT. How many young ill effected men connected to those 80 blown to bits kids may translate their anger into action against the US at some point? 200/500? So do they now have to the right to find out who all of those guys are and take them out pre-emptively in case they act upon the perfectly justified vengeful feelings they now have because of YOUR actions?????????


I know you have your position but I feel you could read another 5000 pages of books/articles/reports and get to know in detail the harm these strikes cause to people and ultimately to the US itself more... and your position will inevitably drift. The evidence and arguments against drone strikes is mounting and you will face a point in the future when you won't feel as strongly as you purport to do now in favor of remotely controlled Hellfire missiles winning a global war on logic.

clairefontaine

Stop nation building. Stay out of it. Problem solved.

asherbassad

cyberhog wrote: »

DAWN reports on a US drone strike in North Waziristan that intentionally targeted first responders.



http://dawn.com/2013/01/03/drone-strike-kills-four-in-s-waziristan-2/

According to the US MARINE CORPS, the nine principles of the law of war are:

· Fight only enemy combatants.
· Do not harm enemies who surrender: disarm them and turn them over to your superior.
· Do not kill or torture prisoners.
· Collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.
· Do not attack medical personnel, facilities, or equipment.
· Do not destroy more than the mission requires.
· Do not steal; respect private property and possessions.
· Do your best to prevent violations of the law of war; report all violations to your superiors, a military lawyer, a chaplain, or provost marshal.


As you can see, two of those priniples have clearly been violated in that drone attack.

The Marines' handbook also argues: "Violations of these principles prejudice the good order and discipline essential to success in combat."

So the Army knows behaving like a barbarian makes it all the more difficult to achieve victory and still the US violates the law of war.

It's like the US is trying not to win the war and create even more enemies. It makes you wonder just WHAT is the game plan?

Ah sure.....they're deploying troops to 35 African nations. What is the game plan indeed? Well, if you were profiting from a war, whether it was going well or not, would you want it to end? In 2004 "Al Queda" (whoever that is) were a bunch of "dead enders" and on their "last legs" according to the guy who should know, i.e. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Now they're a bigger threat than the flu, haha. And everywhere. I can just imagine "Al Queda" surfacing in Roscommon if the bog gas there was nationalised.

Be like Nutella

There is no massive conspiracy here.

There are many interests at play is all.

The Drone lobby want drones to become THE weapon of the future so they try and effect air space regulations/laws etc and try and influence budgetary recommendations. They hire ex military and intelligence personnel and they pressure congressmen over jobs in their states such as California who is benefiting massively from the roll out of more and more drones.

Obama's crowd stood to gain greatly from using drones off the radar because he could be perceived as doing something to fight terrorists but without risking thousands of US troops i.e. with a small footprint. Not that he is/was just a political animal in choosing this path but that he knew/knows that any other path is impossible right now so this is the only option he sees and he believes he has to do something because he genuinely does want to root out and kill-out Al Qaeda. It's just that he's sacrificing too many important ideals in doing so and that there is too much blow back and the whole thing is anti-productive in the long run and as a result strategically inept in my view and in the view of a greatly increasing number of respected critics.

Other competing interests include the interests of senior individuals in agencies such as the CIA who have purposefully transformed the agency into a quasi paramilitary organisation, a kind of kill squad similar to the Phoenix program in Vietnam. The CIA bought the drones in its confidential budget and use military pilots to fly them in conjunction with JSOC/SOCOM and fly missions depending on where to - from Creech AFB and Langley itself (CIA HQ). The reason the CIA control the 'Targeted Killings' portion of drone-use is that they can do the ould cam't confirm or deny two step every time some journalists asks them a question. Meanwhile they get to go and kill anyone they want where they want when they want with minimal oversight by a bunch of oulfellas and oulones from the Senate who have as much of an understanding of drone war as my arse and who are being fed a pile of bullsh1t that they can sign off on and seem patriotic in doing so. Otherwise how the hell could they not roll this thing up after the Chenagai Air Strike that killed 80 fuking kids??

Then there is the US population themselves. I'm just gona cut to the chase and characterize the US people with one brush here - they don't have a clue about whats going on in Pakistan or Yemen... on average.... because their news is cak and there are very few journalists getting their hands dirty in this space - i.e. going the fuk over there and getting into Waziristan and doing the hard work which NYU/Standford did to produce the 'Living Under Drones Report'... and I don't blame them it's well dodgy over in Pakistan and access is seriously limited, either way the US population could give a fuk about some robots flying over some place they couldn't point out on a map, within 3000 miles of accuracy. If there were lives being lost or at risk then there'd be much much more coverage - FACT... so drones really suit everyone. Nobody knows much about them or what they do or where they do it and nobody really gives a fuk - it's perfect! Politicians get to look like they're tough on Defense and get no rabble off their ignorant voters over the moral angle. The 9/11 blinkers are still firmly on Americans heads.

Drones are a sacred cow now - to even question them is to be a heretic. It's very sad really when you learn enough to know that what has been going on is simply a needless human tragedy happening away from peoples attention at the whim of utterly amoral political decisions. There is some momentum right now towards changing drone war policy and it will come to fruition towards the end of the year after the CIA does some serious killing over the next few months before a leash is put on this thing finally but at that point the US will have pre-meditatively murdered without proper cause or due process about 4000 people including women, elderly and children and have p1ssed away any moral credibility they had left after the embarrassment of the last decade of American global calamity.

You can argue drone kills, it is possible... in the right scenario... I would agree to a drone strike in the right circumstances... but not after all the fuking horror the US has visited on the secondary citizens of Waziristan...and by US I mean of course a narrow bunch of folks in the Exec branch and the CIA.

How can anyone support the murder of 3400 people from remote control planes operated from 7000 miles away based on non-existent to poor intelligence and say that it has has had a positive effect on anything? Complete bullsh1t.

' Reforming US Drone Strike Policies '

Micah Zenko (respected Drone analyst from the CFR) his new report

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


.... In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, President Obama declared:

“Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in
binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. Even as we confront a
vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of
America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war.”

I would have thrown my shoe at the fuker for such hypocritical piss taking!


If you're reading this thread then you clearly have some interest in drone strikes - you should read the report below and you can add knowledge to that interest and then shout about it like me : ) - for or against... at least you'll be armed with the data. Nothing worse than 'I like drones coz they kill terrorism' or 'I hate drones coz drones are evil or part of an evil conspiracy'. If I come across like a dik talkin bout drones sometimes it's only coz I'm passionate about the subject and I know what the future ramifications could be of what is happening now.

Download Stanford/NYU Report

http://livingunderdrones.org/download-report/

Be like Nutella

Recent Radio Interview with Micah Zenko (simultaneous critic and advocate of drone strikes)


http://www.theworld.org/2013/01/reforming-us-policies-on-drone-strikes/

cyberhog

@BLN - Thanks for that excellent assessment, I enjoy your input!

Be like Nutella

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2j4K6-JKgs

Be like Nutella

"....There have been more than 400 drone strikes killing more than 3,000 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia over the past decade. Yet Congress has refused to assess or even question the effectiveness, legality and sustainability of this lethal tactic, which has increasingly come to define U.S. foreign policy..."

And that's from the mouth of a CFR Analyst - Micah Zenko

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/pull-back-curtain-drones-article-1.1236893?print

clairefontaine

Obama just gave Afghanistan a fleet of drones.

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-drones-afghan-karzai-067/

Don't you love how trust is restored so quickly?

At war one minute, handing over drones another. Ok then.

CollardGreens

Obama just gave Afghanistan a fleet of drones.

http://rt.com/usa/news/us-drones-afghan-karzai-067/

Don't you love how trust is restored so quickly?

At war one minute, handing over drones another. Ok then.

---

SAY WHAT?! :eek:

What idiot would do something like give a weapon to a group that wants to kill you? I didn't know this. Dang....I'm flabbergasted that it went through. Did our congress approve this or was it another executive order?

I swear our gov is killing our young people. We need to bring those kids home and mind our own business. Let the middle east kill each other other over there and make their own weapons. TY for posting that, I'm sending it out...dang, didn't have any idea but, hey, I'm not surprised in bho but surprised if our congress passed it.

We got everything we need right here on our own land, bunches of oil, land for food, whatever we need is right here at home!

Lordy, Lordy, Ron Paul was on to something.

Be like Nutella

what .. hang on there lads n lassies.... don't lose the cool... as far as it reads it's just a bunch of smaller recon drones not the ones that blow your kids to bits.... nothing to get angry about... and the new Afghan government is not anyone's enemy except maybe the Taliban - they're the bad dudes - they're the ones who don't want girls in school and so forth... this new gov wants to fight the Taliban if the Taliban make a B-Line for power again...... you gotta give them the tools for the job or it'll be your neighbors staying there past 2014/2016! Seriously I thought the article was about giving Reapers to the Afghan forces and training them up on flying them. That ain't never gona happen... ever.

The US if anything needs to be giving them more Helicopters and combat training before they pull out and work with them with sat surveillance - which I assume is highly likely but probably not admitted. Let the Afghans claim their new country and democratic government and fight their way out of this Taliban hell .... and deal with them if necessary and marginalize them and empower them to change incrementally... that's the plan... and surveillance drones no bigger than your deck chair is no threat to anyone or anything.... I assume very very much there are no Predator or Reapers involved in this supply. Langley can still fly Reapers from the US over Afghan airspace (as it will be hopelessly covered by radar etc and easily crossed and most likely allowed to do so but not necessarily so as the CIA could give a rats ass if it's under the irrational justification of the Global War On Terror) and then the US Reapers could do surveillance for the Afghans and give them Taliban locations etc etc

I see no reason for giving them even unarmed Predators (which do exist in various configurations) and I very much doubt that is going to happen but I may be wrong.

I imagine we're talking lots of small drones and few Scan Eagles.

CollardGreens

Nutella,
The US doesn't need to give them Jack Spit! We have been training them and over and over there is blue on green kill'in.

Let another country give them something because we are "give out" here at home (least I wish).

So you think because the drones are little they can't do as much harm? Ever seen the size of a black widow spider?

Be like Nutella

CollardGreens wrote: »

Nutella,
The US doesn't need to give them Jack Spit! We have been training them and over and over there is blue on green kill'in.

Let another country give them something because we are "give out" here at home (least I wish).

So you think because the drones are little they can't do as much harm? Ever seen the size of a black widow spider?

actually yeah fair enough you could imagine a Taliban getting their mits on one of these mid size surveillance drones and attaching a bomb to it and flying it into a base... it is possible alright.

Ireland may be cold and dank but I'm thankful I don't have Black Widows in my garage : )... I heard you can only get the anti-venom once so you have to choose whether you want it or not and the pain is supposed to be unreal! no thanks.

That Blue on Green killin is horrible... one bad apple in a bunch of Afghan soldiers trying to do their training with the US guys and boom - kills US troops and wrecks the whole thing for everyone.. Yol need to get out as quick as is resonable... and when you do the Afghans ain't gona be ready yet to tackle the Taliban... and the whole thing may have been for nothin.. hopefully not though.. and that's why ya gotta give these guys the tools and training right now to do their job.

Meanwhile with this accelerated exit out of AG it seems like we're gona see a hell of a lot of murdering going on by the drone guys in Pakistan next door who will bomb the sh1t out of any Taliban they can before the US gets out of dodge and leaves the Afghans to do it themselves. It's open season on Taliban signature strikes in Waziristan unless the Brennan appointment hearings cause uproar about drones as it should if any of these congressmen or senators have any self respect and plan on doing the job they were elcted to do which is ask the right question and put a leash on any government weapons programs which needs it - and the drone killin certainly needs accounting for - seeing as it is all justified on hunting down the guys that did 9/11... so that needs voting on again and this is the perfect opportunity to ask the Drone Zsar as he's known as


"...Obama’s New CIA Director Nominee Brennan the Drone Tsar: Most Dangerous Man to Ever Be CIA Director..."

http://nsnbc.me/2013/01/11/obamas-new-cia-director-nominee-brennan-the-drone-tsar-most-dangerous-man-to-ever-be-cia-directorobamas-new-cia-director-nominee-brennan-the-drone-tsar-most-dangerous-man-to-ever-b/

Black Swan

Be like Nutella wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2j4K6-JKgs

MOD REMINDER:
Please be advised that YouTube only posts violate our Charter. Please read and comply with the Charter, especially:

Dr Galen wrote: »

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

Dr Galen wrote: »

Posting a link to a video hosted elsewhere does not constitute discussion. Not everyone is able to watch videos, for technical or other reasons, and points raised on a video are almost impossible to refute. It's OK to link to a video, but it should be accompanied by a detailed summary of its contents and arguments, and you must be prepared to discuss it.

CollardGreens

Obama is stirring the pot with the group he is appointing. First they ALL are white men, needless to say women and black people are peed off. All the men are so far left they are gonna fall of the left side of the earth :eek:.

Tomorrow he will be taking about gun control, and get this, he is hiding behind a bunch of children, now that is LOW!

Sure wish I had gotten into gun sales. Google the gun sites, sold out or out of stock on so many guns, bho is making some very rich arms salespeople.

I heard that on the spiders, I hate them! They wouldn't be so bad if they didin't have legs and were just little faceless balls rolling around that the lizards can eat, lol.

We do have black widows, copperhead snakes (I've killed 3 already), and alligators where I live. A neighbor found a third of her black lab floating in one of the swamps, so sad. My lab doesn't go anywhere without me and I don't walk the neighborhood without my gun just in case.

Back to the war, on TV they are talking about maybe backing up the French in Africa where the taliban is trying to get a hold on. This is replay, we had to back up the French many years ago and America just doesn't need to be in another war.

Arse Biscuits!

CollardGreens wrote: »

I whole heartily respect your opinion and feel you are blessed to live in what I can see from the pictures an absolutely beautiful country that I hope to visit soon. I also hope your government values you and your family and respects your rights much more so than our country is doing in these dark days. America is in turmoil with a lot of unrest.

Unfortunately our government have taken all our money, and brought our country into economic hell.

CollardGreens

Unfortunately our government have taken all our money, and brought our country into economic hell.

---

So your in America too?:rolleyes:

Sry, couldn't resist. Yup, we are heading that way. Threating another downgrade for the US. A lot of American patriots are fighting back, our constitution still stands and there are many American that will fight for it.

We voted for leaders, we got a bunch of high school morons with ego's bigger than the mountains in a childish brawl.

I still think from the pic's I've seen, you do live in a pretty place. And hey, you don't have any snakes!

Arse Biscuits!

CollardGreens wrote: »

Unfortunately our government have taken all our money, and brought our country into economic hell.

---

So your in America too?:rolleyes:

Sry, couldn't resist. Yup, we are heading that way. Threating another downgrade for the US. A lot of American patriots are fighting back, our constitution still stands and there are many American that will fight for it.

We voted for leaders, we got a bunch of high school morons with ego's bigger than the mountains in a childish brawl.

I still think from the pic's I've seen, you do live in a pretty place. And hey, you don't have any snakes!

Pretty, yeah. But it's bloody miserable over here too tho... Ah the grass is always greener on the other side

cyberhog

Interesting analysis from Deepa Kumar at Mondoweiss about Hollywood's latest propaganda effort:

‘Zero Dark Thirty’ and the promotion of extra judicial killing

...

The film teaches us that brown men can and should be targeted and killed with impunity, in violation of international law, and that we should trust the CIA to act with all due diligence.

At a time when the key strategy in the “war on terror” has shifted from conventional warfare to extra judicial killing, here comes a film that normalizes and justifies this strategy. The controversy around this film will no doubt increase its box office success, but don’t expect mainstream debate on extra judicial killing. On this, there is bipartisan consent. Therefore the real scandal behind this Oscar nominated film—its shameless propaganda for extra judicial murder—will remain largely hidden.

...

Zero Dark Thirty, nominated for the “best picture of year” Oscar award, is a harbinger of things to come. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed into law by Obama earlier this month includes an amendment, passed in the House last May, that legalizes the dissemination of propaganda to US citizens. Journalist Naomi Klein argues that the propaganda “amendment legalizes something that has been illegal for decades: the direct funding of pro-government or pro-military messaging in media, without disclosure, aimed at American citizens.”

We can therefore expect not only more such films, but also more misinformation on our TV screens, in our newspapers, on our radio stations and in social media websites. What used to be an informal arrangement whereby the State Department and the Pentagon manipulated the media has now been codified into law. Be ready to be propagandized to all the time, everywhere.

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/01/rebranding-promotion-judicial.html

clairefontaine

Be like Nutella wrote: »

what .. hang on there lads n lassies.... don't lose the cool... as far as it reads it's just a bunch of smaller recon drones not the ones that blow your kids to bits.... nothing to get angry about... and the new Afghan government is not anyone's enemy except maybe the Taliban - they're the bad dudes - they're the ones who don't want girls in school and so forth... this new gov wants to fight the Taliban if the Taliban make a B-Line for power again...... you gotta give them the tools for the job or it'll be your neighbors staying there past 2014/2016! Seriously I thought the article was about giving Reapers to the Afghan forces and training them up on flying them. That ain't never gona happen... ever.

The US if anything needs to be giving them more Helicopters and combat training before they pull out and work with them with sat surveillance - which I assume is highly likely but probably not admitted. Let the Afghans claim their new country and democratic government and fight their way out of this Taliban hell .... and deal with them if necessary and marginalize them and empower them to change incrementally... that's the plan... and surveillance drones no bigger than your deck chair is no threat to anyone or anything.... I assume very very much there are no Predator or Reapers involved in this supply. Langley can still fly Reapers from the US over Afghan airspace (as it will be hopelessly covered by radar etc and easily crossed and most likely allowed to do so but not necessarily so as the CIA could give a rats ass if it's under the irrational justification of the Global War On Terror) and then the US Reapers could do surveillance for the Afghans and give them Taliban locations etc etc

I see no reason for giving them even unarmed Predators (which do exist in various configurations) and I very much doubt that is going to happen but I may be wrong.

I imagine we're talking lots of small drones and few Scan Eagles.

Nutella,

One of the reasons news like this is so alarming to American citizens, is the idea of "assistance." A country that promotes independence from primary school onwards, saturated in its literature, its political theory, both individual and political, shames the dependent, whether that be people on welfare or political states. For the US to be so demanding of independence, to scorn handouts, to see national budget cuts on education, to see them fail their citizens in crisis such as Sandy and Katrina, expecting the people to be "independent", and then to be seen to rebuild enemy territory and reconstruct foreign lands, when it can't even do something like that for its own citizens in a natural disaster, is sickening to them.

The Marshall plan was one thing, but the money isn't there anymore. This is part of the nation building that has to stop. You see it's easy to think Oh get America to go in and save Syria, but the thing is once America goes into a nation militarily, then it is obliged to pay for it being rebuilt, and that often means also military supply. It cannot go in and save every country in the ME and also function itself.

Cork boy 55

The OP has provided ZERO proof of a war crime why does this thread still exist?

Be like Nutella

Cork boy do you really want to get into a semantic debate about what is considered a war crime in the eyes of moral people verses international law verses what the US government since 9/11 considers a war crime? I'll do it if ya want but it'll take some reading and some arguing : )

I agree the Op should prob have argued the case first though but it wasn't their intention as far as I can see to get into some legal debate.

It is a complex subject but I reckon it can be proven that many if not the majority of drone strikes carried out in Waziristan since 2004 have been war crimes as war crimes were considered to be - before 9/11.
Since 9/11 and since congress passed the powers act as part of all that patriot act stuff the US has arbitrarily defined its actions against terrorists such as AQ as an endless Global War in which it reserves the right to act pre emptively in self defense even if it crosses sovereign borders into a non-combat zone. This is not something that is agreed to be a legal truth by most nations so the thing gets messy. However in terms in legal international norms the use of unmanned flying missile delivery systems over sovereign space comes under similar laws as are within the various missile treaties because if you think about it a drone is a kind of missile i that it is unmanned and is loaded with explosives.

Congress passed the special powers act specifically with capturing or killing Bin Laden in mind and now that he has been successfully assassinated that act no longer should be in effect and many are arguing for another vote to specify new powers in a new context... therefore many actually believe that those powers do not apply any more and actions since getting UBL are illegal in terms of US law.

The attempt to kill first responders after a strike is certainly a war crime in every instance and the special rapporteur on extra judicial and summary executions has said so

"..."The global war paradigm has done immense damage to a previously shared international consensus on the legal framework underlying both international human rights law and international humanitarian law," he said. "It has also given a spurious justification to a range of serious human rights and humanitarian law violations.

"The [global] war paradigm was always based on the flimsiest of reasoning, and was not supported even by close allies of the US. The first-term Obama administration initially retreated from this approach, but over the past 18 months it has begun to rear its head once again, in briefings by administration officials seeking to provide a legal justification for the drone programme of targeted killing in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia …

"[It is] alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. Christof Heyns … has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view."


Christof Heyns / Ben Emmerson

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/25/un-inquiry-us-drone-strikes



Philip Alston - Legal Professor at NYU - used to work for the UN.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xo7_jiY46s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEDFPqn_0ys

Cork boy 55

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Cork boy do you really want to get into a semantic debate about what is considered a war crime in the eyes of moral people verses international law verses what the US government since 9/11 considers a war crime? I'll do it if ya want but it'll take some reading and some arguing : )


]

Please review the OP posting history he is ant-western propagandist and a liar
see his latest thread on Syria in the main section where he selective quotes tweets in order to produce propaganda
The Op claims a war claim was committed based on anonymous security sources in a Pakistan magazine.
there is no prove in this case ZERO
It should be locked. I thought there was posting standards

Is there not an existing thread to talk about drones in general some pages back Yes or NO?