Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Drone Strikes
Options
-
21-01-2013 12:22am#1For any topical drone debate relative to US Politics and Foreign policy.0
Comments
-
What? I came on expecting more than one line, which in itself doesn't seem to make any argument.0
-
christ man : ) will ya take a chill pill I was just startin a thread for drone related stuff because somebody was saying other threads needed lockin and I thought a single thread for drone strikes would make sense in US Politics as it is constantly a central news item and topical to US news in recent times.. if ya get me0
-
Ah cool. Ye get a few people posting one page sentences around these parts. So, to make people argue, here's two bits;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/20/cia-pakistan-drone-strikes-codification
I wonder how Pakistans military views this; friend, or foe?John Brennan, the counter-terrorism adviser nominated by President Obama to be the next head of the CIA, has reportedly agreed to exempt agency strikes in Pakistan from a new set of rules that attempts to justify and codify the use of drones to assassinate leaders of al-Qaida and other terrorist groups around the world, including US citizens.
The dispensation to allow so-called targeted killing to continue without restrictions in Pakistan removes from the new set of guidelines the most important and controversial target of drone strikes. In the past few weeks the frequency of US strikes in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan, where many al-Qaida and Taliban leaders are hiding out, has been stepped up.
=-=
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/20/drone-attack-kills-militants-yemen?INTCMP=SRCH
It seems Yemen is making full use of the drones.More than 10 suspected al-Qaida operatives were killed by an explosion in a house in south Yemen where they were making bombs and at least three others died in a drone strike, tribal and official sources said on Sunday.0 -
Ah cool. Ye get a few people posting one page sentences around these parts. So, to make people argue, here's two bits;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/20/cia-pakistan-drone-strikes-codification
I wonder how Pakistans military views this; friend, or foe?
=-=
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/20/drone-attack-kills-militants-yemen?INTCMP=SRCH
It seems Yemen is making full use of the drones.
well see its a messy situation in the countries where the US are doing the strikes. In Pakistan where the vast majority of drones strikes have been carried out - on one hand you've got a central Pakistani population (who really hate the US as a rule for various reasons not all of them rational:) you've got an intelligence agency the ISI who play both sides at the same time - they play the US off the Taliban and AQ so they can still get their billions of dollars annually in so called 'aid'...
"..Controversial Pakistani doctor and alleged CIA informant, Dr Shakil Afridi claimed in an interview to Fox News that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency regarded America as its “worst enemy” and that the incumbent government was cooperating with the US only to extract billions in aid..."
Dr Afridi
...“It is now indisputable that militancy in Pakistan is supported by the ISI […] Pakistan’s fight against militancy is bogus. It’s just to extract money from America,” Dr Afridi said, referring to the $23 billion Pakistan has received, mostly, in military aid since 9/11....."
http://tribune.com.pk/story/434542/dr-afridi-claims-isi-regards-us-as-worst-enemy/
fair enough that is just one quote from one source on one controversial dude but only coz I'm lazy right now (there's tonnes more evidence)
but that is a lot of cash - does that raise a question of conflict of interest? hmmm methinks so : )
then
you have on the other hand many Pakistani politicians constantly giving out about the drone strikes saying they're illegal and should stop immediately.
7th November, 2012
Khan, leader of the Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf party (PTI), has campaigned for an end to US drone strikes against suspected Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas, saying they result in civilian casualties.
"..Khan argues that drone strikes are illegal and counterproductive and last month led thousands of supporters – and some US peace activists – on a march to the edge of Pakistan’s restive tribal districts to protest against them..."
http://dawn.com/2012/11/07/imran-khan-asks-obama-to-end-us-drone-attacks/
and there are many other Pakistani politicians who feel the same way and have voiced so in parliament
Pakistan again asks US to stop drone strikes
4 January 2013
- "We consider the drone strikes totally unproductive, illegal and violative of Pakistan's territorial integrity," Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Moazam Khan said Friday.
plus you have the very revealing wiki cable leak showing clearly that Pakistan's government in power says one thing publicly about drone strikes and then says a totally different thing in private when speaking to US officials.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/167125?INTCMP=SRCH
direct quote form the cable leak
"...Malik suggested we hold off alleged Predator attacks until after the Bajaur operation. The PM brushed aside Rehman,s remarks and said "I don,t care if they do it as long as they get the right people. We,ll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it." ...."
so the picture in Pakistan is very messy in terms of Does Pakistan really want Drone strikes or not.. in fact it's a complex story which needs feeling out to properly understand... I'd say Cork Boy could explain it well given his understanding of these messy in-country faction paradoxes.
For now, for me - it's about manipulation to get what you want - The US and by that I mean the team of cross agency guys who have been putting drones to work for Obama does what it needs to do to be able to continue to do drone strike after drone strike in Pakistan's Waziristan region, no matter what internal political mess that causes... and it does cause a mess... in what is essentially a half failing state... probably the most dangerous country on the planet... with nukes and an out of control corrupt ISI... all of this doesn't matter to the US - they have set themselves a mission to do as many drone strikes as they can in that area and that is what they have done and are continuing to do. It doesn't serve any purpose to discuss the internal mess of Pakistan in this thread - that is a separate and important issue concerning the US's foreign policy but as far as the US drone strikes I prefer to focus on the strike policy and the strikes in and of themselves to determine whether they are legal, moral or productive and on all three counts my personal position is that they are not.
Approx 3000-3500 people have been blown up SO FAR by American Drone Hellfire missiles since the summer of 2004. That is an important number because the rationale for these strikes is something along the lines of
self-defense during a Global War on Terror using actions which properly reflect the risk of loss of American lives as authorized by congress after 9/11.... basically is what they say.
In EVERY SINGLE drone strike authorized - which is about 400-450 as of today, there HAD TO BE a situation where EVERY target represented a CLEAR AND IMMINENT RISK to US lives. This is not supported by reality.
In some instances drones took out guys who were definitely doing or about to be doing some majorly bad **** including planning attacks on America... and there was good Intel to support that conclusion... which said basically 'if we take out this guy, even though there's 4 kids around him and his wife and some old guy at the dinner table... this action will 70/80% PREVENT an attack WE KNOW is imminent on the US at home or abroad (which is a complicated definition debate in some cases)... and I am not delighted with that scenario but I do not object to it IF IT DIRECTLY STOPS SOME TERRORIST JIHADI FROM BLOWING UP TIME SQUARE AND 300 PEOPLE WITH HIM!... sadly this is not a reflection on each OR the MAJORITY of drone strike situations - and that's 400-450 of them!! So you can see why some people take issue yeah?
Easy to stand back and generalize without studying it and say 'fuk the terrorists and where they hide - blow them all up they gona do it to you in the end anyway'... and sadly a lot of arguments go like that. In the real world the debate is much more nuanced obviously and although some areas are actually debatable... in the case of outright moral wrongs there are many aspects of drone strikes which are just wrong on just about every level.
Take Signature Strikes for instance.
What is a signature strike some people will ask... a sig strike is basically where you fly your surveillance drones over an area and you see some dudes doing things which seem a bit lets call it 'terroristy'... I'm serious... and you then apply a set of rules to that picture and you make a decision to blow up these dudes even though you don't know who they are and what they're doing or may do in the future - literally no clue... but you do it because... well basically because you can... I mean you;ve already turned up for work in Langley to fly your drone today and you're supposed to be huntin AQ and the likes so when your commander says 'hey hit those guys there they seem well dodgy' you do it. Obviously I'm messin there is a process and it goes up the chain and the pictures and vids are looked at and then somebody makes a call that 'yeah those guys could be AQ so fuk it blow'em to hell' and that's what ya do... joystick left... crosshairs... select target... release Hellfire missile and in 1 second flat that baby is doing 1000 miles an hour BOOM puff of smoke... next target please.
That is a Signature Strike... and by many accounts and comments from top officials in many articles right across the web - the consensus is that Sig strikes became the 'majority of strikes' carried out in Pakistan. and that as I see it - is bad, basically on every level.
You can't go around blowing the sh1t outa people in a foreign country with which you're not at war with who doesn't want you there blowing up its people (innocent or guilty who knows) and in doing so kill hundreds of innocent civilians and kids and mothers and grandads... you just can't. But they do.
So there's two examples of where a drone strike is justified on some level and another scenario where it clearly is not. That is just one angle on the drone debate. There are many. So it is not a simple subject to learn about nor debate. But there are some areas which we can probably all agree on once they are properly delineated.
Signature strikes are bad and need to stop, for instance. Analysts agree with this sentiment. Journalists all over the place agree with this sentiment. Hell ex-CIA guys, Intel guys from all agencies, Army commanders, foreign politicians of all sorts - agree with this sentiment. And there is some momentum towards actually stopping or at least greatly reducing 'Signature Drone Strikes'... and this is the power of debate and proper analysis and proper journalism and well researched reports and legal arguments... eventually all this talk... on forums too... leads to a trending meme... a public understanding... and finally outrage and the effects of that is that a US 'action' or 'policy' becomes 'untenable' and so they change what they do. If that saves innocent Pakistani lives and results in a more rational US foreign policy then great but we're not there yet but there is momentum. As shown in this CFR report by Micah Zenko (resident CFR Drone nerd and anti-sig strike activist... in a way : )
Micah Zenko from Reforming US Drone Strike Policies (link below)
"...Consequently, the United States should more fully explain and reform
aspects of its policies on drone strikes in nonbattlefield settings by
ending the controversial practice of “signature strikes”..."
http://www.cfr.org/wars-and-warfare/reforming-us-drone-strike-policies/p29736
When the traditional den of CT wet dreams neocon hawk-tank of the Council on Foreign Relations put up a report by one of their guys for download and cause waves across the net in doing so - you should take note! In other words - even the CFR think Sig Strikes should be stopped.
I've spoken with Zenko by email - he's a pure rationalist... he does see value in drone strikes but not sig strikes. He sees how anti-productive certain types of drone strikes have been and I agree with him 100%.
I very much recommend reading the report - it took me 45 mins... there's a lot of padding as is usually the case. CFR is just one of many think tanks which virtually advise the administration by way of peer-reviewed sentiment within the circles of those who are considered knowedgeable and smart enough to think about US foreign policy. Presidential advisers read all the reports and produce policy recommendations from the body of reports hence they're called think tanks - you can argue how great one is or is not... I don't bother I read stuff from them all and treat them critically like everything else.
Micah Zenko's recommendations are valid and rational but don't go far enough IMO but I think he chose to limit his reach to what would be read and talked about as opposed to ruffling too many feathers with anything too radical. You won't get much attention or consideration with stuff like I write i.e. drones are murder and drone strikes are evil and so forth haha it's not the type of opinion which affects policy.
3000-3500 PEOPLE BLOWN TO BITS SO FAR INCLUDING HUNDREDS OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS, MANY OF WHICH ON A 'WHIM' USING SIGNATURE STRIKES WITHOUT KNOWING WHO THEY ARE DESTROYING. YOU CANNOT SUPPORT THAT RATIONALLY - YOU CAN SHOUT ABOUT TERRORISTS BUT YOU CANNOT RATIONALLY SUPPORT SIG STRIKES ON THAT SCALE.0 -
New PBS Doc on Drones
The Rise Of Drones
Quite a bit of military access in this doc.
Some disconcerting info revealed in it such as the fact that Killer Drone Pilots are being trained off the street within months - to fly actual kill missions without any prior Air Force training or prior weapons training or combat experience of any kind. Not a good recipe IMO at all. Up to now all drone pilots have been USAF trained prior to enrolling in flying killer drones such as the Reaper which can carry pretty much the same amount of death as a fighter jet.
0 -
Advertisement
-
I agree with you Nutella that ppl should be military trained to use the drones, and I'm also thinking that there are way too many ppl that are getting their hands on them not only in the states but in our enemy countries.
The big cities here in the states I've been told have the drones within their police dept.
Sometimes I wish I were very, very old because I don't want to see how this world will end up 20-30 years from now and I feel sorry for the children that are born into what seems to me to be a world way out of control.
Everything is done with the push of buttons, text messages, twitter, and facebook for friendship/relationships. For the record, I don't do text, twitter or FB but choose to enjoy natural things like being outside in the woods, on the beach, fishing/surfing or just being with friends & family eating some good food and laughing.
Are you old enough to remember this song? The words, I think of it often.
0 -
don't despair there's still hope for us yet ; )
"He's taken everything this old Earth can give,
And he ain't put back nothing..."
sometimes we're attracted to over arching narratives and thinkin of mankind as some kind of single conscience.. but it ain't like that... at least not yet. Everything needs to be analyzed on its own at first. Drones for instance are just a totally natural progression form the cold war and DARPA - they were probably always going to come into widespread use if you look at the evolution of vehicles to bi-planes to how the great wars advanced planes right up to the SR-71 Blackbird doing Mach 3 over Russia faster than a sniper bullet - to take some pictures... so the natural evolution was to simply control the plane with radio signals from far away and not risk the pilot and now we got Reapers and Global Hawks and crawling, swimming, diving, flying drones of all kinds. The tech always takes a curve upwards when massive funding or massive drive is behind it... in this case the massive drive is a political catch 22 where the US wants to influence things in its favor but cannot put many US lives at risk... in fact any at all is too many right now from all the bullsh1t war that you guys were duped into getting involved with. Drones that we see now are just the early part of a curve - they are the bi-planes before World War 2 and they will advance as with all other tech exponentially once there is a driving factor behind them. The problem is that this is the only chance we'lkl get to think about what we'#re doing with them before that rate of advancement and spread of drone tech across the entire globe speeds up past our ability to control it. Laws of conflict are from the 1940's and need to be seriously updated to take into account Drone War. The US made a really bad start to things in the drone world by committing hundreds of war crimes using drones before laws could catch up with their use. But that is what all these reports are about - catching up. Dealing with the moral side of drone use and codifying those generally agreed normative morals into international law which will prevent countries like the US from carrying out too many war crimes in future with drones - IF it's done right. The risk now is that the US and Russia and China etc will use this period to basically justify into law a wide bracket of drone use which will under arbitrarily created devices such as the Global War On Terror - allow them to do what they want when they want given certain scenarios and that will just serve no purpose at all.0 -
Assertions by Obama administration officials, as well as by many scholars, that these operations comply with international standards are undermined by the total absence of any forms of credible transparency or verifiable accountability. The CIA’s internal control mechanisms, including its Inspector-General, have had no discernible impact; executive control mechanisms have either not been activated at all or have ignored the issue; congressional oversight has given a ‘free pass’ to the CIA in this area; judicial review has been effectively precluded; and external oversight has been reduced to media coverage which is all too often dependent on information leaked by the CIA itself. As a result, there is no meaningful domestic accountability for a burgeoning program of international killing. This in turn means that the United States cannot possibly satisfy its obligations under international law to ensure accountability for its use of lethal force, either under International Human Rights Law or International Humanitarian Law. The result is the steady undermining of the international rule of law, and the setting of legal precedents which will inevitably come back to haunt the United States before long when invoked by other states with highly problematic agendas.
The Above is a quote from a paper by former UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Prof Philip Alston, which can be downloaded from the link below.
The CIA and Targeted Killings Beyond Borders, Prof Philip Alston
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1928963
Targeted Killings: The US, the UN and Accountability by Philip Alston
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crtAuI50vgs
Professor Christian Enemark : 'Predators, reapers and post-heroic war ' at The Australian National University on 9 August 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLBDqy6pj28&ytsession=5ZujpRohnNa_CT206UF8ywUsMDJy8klscHlEZXcrYfHYQavMemR_C3n0fO6APBzeELEGIFN3cj1ab8KcXGH76c6AIFaACSi9Qa1EBrGwgbPL-oBiSf5rCMzWG_A7541Ldafo2qzmQFCx14jwtDd4RYc-A_dgHMbJBaMfEEWLd2NWOY8W80k3LvC0NpTgnPWX9VOH0OydmnO0-jhK0kaxWDchETKQZFPR0zgs7wMKlUcdrs_dZRfHo86I0wNKqwIRQQNyJuiUb_JgcEYHcq6fJfi4udJCrfhk1epAdSh5b-s
Drone Policy Will Come Back to Haunt US
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy4aLYsYODs
Extrajudicial Killing Debate with Philip Alston & John Dehn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1mFMyBFx38
What We Talk About When We Talk About Drones
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/special/drones_65120
Attorney General Eric Holder on Targeted Killings of Americans Overseas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZX8rtuqMiw
Pakistan Demands USA Stop Drone Strikes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1dPcZ4c-T0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YVnn1GrNlA&feature=watch_response
Obama confirms Pakistan drone strike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERbFO06Ppnk
CIA Director: Drone Attacks in Pakistan Will Continue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_75yCJvAi8A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-DJ6JOaHvc
New America Foundation Analysis of Drone Strikes: The Year of the Drone
http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones
Pakistan Body Count Stats
http://pakistanbodycount.org/drone_attack
Predator Drones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMh8Cjnzen8
Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle
International Human Rights Law IHRL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_law
International Humanitarian Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_humanitarian_law
Laws of War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war0 -
Great Comment I read under a NYT article recently:
The total lack of transparency in the CIA Drone program is an affront to our Democracy. John Brennan once declared no civilians were being killed and even the Obama Administration claimed civilian deaths were in the "single digits." Both claims were lies and they knew it. Drone strikes are not investigated by the CIA so we don't know how many civilians are killed, or if the alleged militants/terrorists are planning an imminent attack on the U.S. U.S. policy was changed claiming every adult male killed by a Drone strike is a terrorist, unless after the person is killed, it is conclusively proven he was not. Such proof is impossible.
For the first time in our history, the President has the power to kill anyone he declares a terrorist, anytime, anywhere in the World, be it an American, or foreigner. This policy is immoral, violates our system of checks and balances, and is dictatorial.
Congress and the President (especially Obama) have gotten a free pass from the public in ever expanding Drone strikes. How can so many people (over 80% of Americans) support a policy they know absolutely nothing about? We were told that terrorists were being sent to Gitmo, yet 603 of the 775 were released after concluding they were not terrorists with many more waiting release. Killing people in Pakistan, Somalia & Yemen merely because we declare they are terrorists is unethical, illegal and immoral. It must be stopped.
_______________
Pretty much the most succinct opinion on the issue I have read to date.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,245 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 36388
-
Advertisement
-
Well it's clear that the rule of law doesn't apply to the US anymore. The Laws of Warfare and the Geneva Conventions were really only ever given lip-service but were rarely adhered to. Just read the book "kill Everything That Moves" and watch the Irish-made documentary "Get The Picture".
But now instead of apprehending suspects, questioning them, charging them, trying them and convicting or acquitting them, the US now just simply kills them with no due process and no judicial oversight and this is the new norm.
I thought the US had plumbed the depths when it implemented its kidnap and torture program but now just assassinating people from the sky means they're reached a new benchmark in complete lawlessness, brutality and savagery.
I wish there was another planet I could live on....far away from these people.0 -
I can understand your frustration... this drone sh1t is off the moral charts.
The September 11th attack really fuked up the US, the whole system, and allowed hawks in Washington to really flex their muscles and push through doctrine and warfare of an amoral nature which didn't reflect the classic US moral high ground so often hailed up to that point. They're going through a very dark period since Bush came in with his neocon cronies. But there are good few rational minded politicians over there...if you look closely and their system of checks and balances is just starting again to show some courage recently, what with Rand Paul's question about drone strikes on US soil holding up Brennan's appointment, to Ted Poe's sponsoring of the Preserve American Privacy Act 2013 to this new idea for courts for drones strikes which may kick in in 2014 - the drone strikes seem like they are going to reduce in number dramatically at some point but we'll have to wait and see - the wheels are starting to turn. It's too late for a thousand or so innocent Pakistani civilians (that's ok they're worth less than white American's anyway;) but that's why we argue about it, here and in the media and on the news shows - so that eventually sense will prevail and moral normatives are somewhat restored from a very low place to something more human... but it will take a lot of previously quiet and cowardly ignorant politicians on both sides of the isle to stand up and show some backbone and speak out against the drone strikes and the black sites and the torture etc etc You have to admit to your mistakes, own them and then try to fix the system. That takes courage and honest politicians - something the US has been sorley missing for some time now.0 -
I think I'm the only one with the view of pro drone strikes ,since the Israelis inception of armed drones to the super all singing all dancing types now roaming the global battle space,we keep reading about various causalities inside various Pakistani regions and beyond with news reports of ohhh the poor innocent bomb maker and his friends who just happen to loose out on on his martyrdom,because some chap sitting in a connex container several thousands of miles away decides ohh look armed men gathering looks bad and decides my boom is better than yours press of the button mad mullah day out ends, this is modern warfare personally morals belong at a bible group not in modern warfare a lot pretty educated people write various reports shocking figures yadda yadda yadda this is wrong we investigated every drone strike and none were actually justified and every person killed were innocent farmers just with stock piles of explosives and arms cashes ,the main issue since ww2 in american war fighting and the polices behind every conflict since ww2 lack of any understanding and using propaganda ,bad guys get killed call CNN or NBC ohh the horror americans kill innocent bad guys again everybody attack the cia or the white house because we know hacks never get it wrong ,and yet if Pakistan is so against drones they could easily stop them it ,it seems every few weeks that Iran manages to capture the latest us drones and in 10 years Pakistan has none to show off or shot down makes me wonder why ,I'd personally love to see the isi accidentally targeted along the same lines as the Taliban/alqueda
0 -
I think I'm the only one with the view of pro drone strikes ,since the Israelis inception of armed drones to the super all singing all dancing types now roaming the global battle space,we keep reading about various causalities inside various Pakistani regions and beyond with news reports of ohhh the poor innocent bomb maker and his friends who just happen to loose out on on his martyrdom,because some chap sitting in a connex container several thousands of miles away decides ohh look armed men gathering looks bad and decides my boom is better than yours press of the button mad mullah day out ends, this is modern warfare personally morals belong at a bible group not in modern warfare a lot pretty educated people write various reports shocking figures yadda yadda yadda this is wrong we investigated every drone strike and none were actually justified and every person killed were innocent farmers just with stock piles of explosives and arms cashes ,the main issue since ww2 in american war fighting and the polices behind every conflict since ww2 lack of any understanding and using propaganda ,bad guys get killed call CNN or NBC ohh the horror americans kill innocent bad guys again everybody attack the cia or the white house because we know hacks never get it wrong ,and yet if Pakistan is so against drones they could easily stop them it ,it seems every few weeks that Iran manages to capture the latest us drones and in 10 years Pakistan has none to show off or shot down makes me wonder why ,I'd personally love to see the isi accidentally targeted along the same lines as the Taliban/alqueda
you feel better now?? if you and your family were terrorised by drone attacks raining down on you all for even 30 minutes i bet you would a very different view.0 -
I will concede that non-military people do not understand military action as much as military people.
I will concede journalists can be, and are wrong, on a day to day basis.
I will concede that many deluded terrorists live in Waziristan and that they would like to do harm to Americans and should be stopped.
I will even concede that the reports and studies that have been carried out are not going to be accurate in their discrete numbers.
But the way you say it all 'Gatling' makes you seem like another gun-toting General Patton wanabe which I wouldn't say you are. I wouldn't say you truly believe in indiscriminate drone kills or the idea of using drones to kill guys without proper evidence to show they are an imminent threat. I would say you would view a drone strike which killed 80 kids in a madras which was executed on dodgy Intel and carried out because it was easy to do and wouldn't be investigated - is wrong.. right? I would say you'd disagree with that? But I myself would kill somebody if I thought I had no other way of stopping them doing harm to a bunch of people and I knew I was averting 20 people getting killed by some guy. I have no problem with that morally but I would HAVE TO KNOW or be 95% certain that they were going to do this act in the future and be able to support that thesis with demonstrable facts and evidence.
Let me ask you ... do you
a) believe the US is at constant war with terrorism around the world?
and
b) will be possibly forever and should therefore act accordingly?
and
c) has, therefore, the inherent right to do whatever it wants as if it was trying to win a war as long as it was acting in self-defense under the concept of being at continuous war wherever that war brings it?0 -
A US congressman Lindsey Graham, a staunch supporter of the drone war, revealed yesterday that 4700 people have been blown up by Drones thus far.
here's an interesting quote by 3 star general William Odom, formerly President Reagan's NSA Director, who wrote:
"As many critics have pointed, out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world. A prudent American president would end the present policy of "sustained hysteria" over potential terrorist attacks..treat terrorism as a serious but not a strategic problem, encourage Americans to regain their confidence, and refuse to let al Qaeda keep us in a state of fright."0 -
Craig Murray has done an interesting bit on drones for his latest blog entry.The United States has set up its first Sahelian drone base, in Niger, in order to carry on the war against “Al-Qaedah in the Islamic Maghreb”. The problem is that there is no such thing as “Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb”. The US seems to confuse Al-Qaeda with Starbucks. Al-Qaeda does not have branches everywhere, a highly organised supply chain, and transfer pricing.
...
Hatred of the United States has not been a strong motivator in the Maghreb. But now the United States is about to introduce the concept of weekly drone kills and collateral murders, it will be. The USA is going to create the kind of anti-American unity which does not exist at present, and yet it claims to be fighting.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2013/02/the-starbucks-view-of-al-qaida/0 -
An interesting debate on Drone strikes on Slashdot and the fillibuster that Rand Paul is undertaking to highlight the issue. : Slashdot.
It does seem that the issue is non-partisan where the Pro/Anti strikes are found in both US parties.0 -
The far left and ACLU are against government abusing rights and targeted killings in general, the far right Tea Party heads are against Obama in general and his champion 'strategy' against Terrorism and want to restrict any likelihood of big bro drone surveillance within the US, Rand Paul himself like his father wants congress to take back power from the Exec Branch who have been on a drunken adventure since 9/11. The media, who usually supports drone strikes and Obama has turned a corner and is now on board the hype around Rand Pauls stance and the delaying of CIA and Sec Defense jobs so it's all working in favor of tightening the leash on Obama's despicable drone program. Even retarded Fox news is helping the issue as they will do anything which shines a neg light on Obama. I am not a fan of Rand Paul and his broader stances in general but I like his move here - clearly with 2016 in mind. Politically genius.
A great quote from Micah Zenko of the CFR today..
"More important than the theater of Rand Paul’s filibuster would be its impact (if any) on rallying the sustained interest of his colleagues to examine the full scope of America’s ten years and four months-practice of targeted killings. This will only be possible if the White House—as it has promised to do for many months—decides to more comprehensively engage with Congress, the American people, and the world about this unending Third War."0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »The far left and ACLU are against government abusing rights and targeted killings in general, the far right Tea Party heads are against Obama in general and his champion 'strategy' against Terrorism and want to restrict any likelihood of big bro drone surveillance within the US, Rand Paul himself like his father wants congress to take back power from the Exec Branch who have been on a drunken adventure since 9/11. The media, who usually supports drone strikes and Obama has turned a corner and is now on board the hype around Rand Pauls stance and the delaying of CIA and Sec Defense jobs so it's all working in favor of tightening the leash on Obama's despicable drone program. Even retarded Fox news is helping the issue as they will do anything which shines a neg light on Obama. I am not a fan of Rand Paul and his broader stances in general but I like his move here - clearly with 2016 in mind. Politically genius.
A great quote from Micah Zenko of the CFR today..
"More important than the theater of Rand Paul’s filibuster would be its impact (if any) on rallying the sustained interest of his colleagues to examine the full scope of America’s ten years and four months-practice of targeted killings. This will only be possible if the White House—as it has promised to do for many months—decides to more comprehensively engage with Congress, the American people, and the world about this unending Third War."
The ACLU have a list of prioritised people tbh. I'm not a fan of them at all.
But I agree with you since 911 the US has lost the plot. Al Quaeda may as well have won because so many of our freedoms have been robbed and stripped of us and by our own government. I don't deny that terrorism is a real threat [tactic or whatever you want to call it] and we have real enemies, but if the point is to bring down the free world from the inside, so that the people of the free world are the ones who are destroying their own freedoms, well then their tactics have worked.
I was always a fan of Ron Paul, he was the only one who talked any sense to me, although not entirely- I do think he is idealistic is some respects, but far more balanced than any of the other crackpots around.
The whole relationship between the US and Saudi and the rest of the ME is trapped in a kind of political soap opera where things are going on behind the scenes and we are not getting the full picture. None of it makes any sense and there must be a reason why it makes no sense.
Obama has run amok with executive power. The fact that the IRS can financially punish you if you dont take out health insurance is CRAZY!!! How did this pass? How did the ability to take out any US citizen without trial happen? How did this all happen? Madness. I hope he does enough craziness that he hangs himself and gets impeached.0 -
Advertisement
-
clairefontaine wrote: »I don't deny that terrorism is a real threat [tactic or whatever you want to call it] and we have real enemies, but if the point is to bring down the free world from the inside, so that the people of the free world are the ones who are destroying their own freedoms, well then their tactics have worked.
ya know I'd say you're dead right. I'd say there's AQ guys sittin somewhere tonight thinkin - ya know it doesn't matter what we do or don't do they attack themselves so much taking away their own rights and giving their government dictatorial powers.... 9/11 was far more successful then they ever thought it would be.
The threat of Jihadist Terrorism to the USA is simply overblown. The so called Global War on Terror is a pile of crap. People are starting to wake up. The CIA/NSA have stepped way outside their remits and need to be squashed back into their boxes and made do what they were doing in the first place - trying to detect and stop terrorist plots upon the US Homeland. That they failed on 9/11 is terrible but it shouldn't change their remit.
I have MASSIVE respect for Rand Paul's 13 hour filibuster speech. I've listen to the first hour and I'm going to listen to the whole bloody thing over the next weeks just out of respect for the guy for doing it, for standing up and shouting about the total abuse of presidential executive powers which BOTH Bush AND Obama are guilty of. This is not a partisan issue. The US admin needs a serious smack-down!0 -
It's pure theater. When you have $100 worth of mascara, cream blush, and lipstick taken off you at an airport and the NYPD are rummaging through old ladies' handbags, and more people die from gunshot wounds than terrorist attacks, you know this is a ****ing farce.
Someone is making money off this crap. The secret is to finding out who. Follow the money.0 -
here's an interview with Sen Paul about his 13 hour filibuster about due process and drone strikes
0 -
My sound isn't working. I'll have to catch that again on the television.
A 13 hour filibuster, glad someone in there has some stamina!
You are seriously going to listen to the whole thing?
Both Pauls, father and son are way into the Federalist Papers, probably the only guys in there who have read them. If you want to understand the US, you have to read them.
If you don't have due process then you don't have rule of law and then you don't really have democracy.0 -
Projected US Drone Inventory in 2017
U.S. Air Force
MQ-1B Predator 110
MQ-9A Reaper 256
RQ-4B Global Hawk 15
Total……………………381
U.S. Army
RQ-11B Raven 7,074
RQ-7B Shadow 408
MQ-5B Hunter 45
MQ-1C Gray Eagle 152
Total……………………7,679
U.S. Navy
MQ-4C BAMS 13
MQ-8B Firescout/TUAV 37
RQ-21A STUAS 4
RQ-21A Scan Eagle 122
UCLASS 4
Total……………………180
U.S. Marine Corps
RQ-7B Shadow 52
RQ-21A STUAS 100
Total……………………152
GRAND TOTAL…….8,392
Taken form this article.
http://www.matthewaid.com/post/29822072373/how-many-unmanned-drones-is-the-u-s-flying
"...Can anyone out there tell me why the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps need 2,000 more unmanned drones over the next five years given that the last U.S. combat troops are scheduled to be withdrawn from Afghanistan either late next year or in early 2014?..."
The main supplier of combat drones is General Atomics. They supply the Predators, Gray Eagles (or Warriors) and the larger 'Reaper' drones (MQ-9s) - so far they've supplied about 15 Billion dollars of drones ! That's a lot of M.I.C. in the mix right there. They operate out of San Diego California, thousands of highly paid jobs! I wonder how hippy California feels about the Drone war : )0 -
This talk covers precisely what you're getting at !
Nothing easy is ever worth doing.... in the long term.
Welcome to post-heroic war !
0 -
Be like Nutella wrote: »Projected US Drone Inventory in 2017
U.S. Air Force
MQ-1B Predator 110
MQ-9A Reaper 256
RQ-4B Global Hawk 15
Total……………………381
U.S. Army
RQ-11B Raven 7,074
RQ-7B Shadow 408
MQ-5B Hunter 45
MQ-1C Gray Eagle 152
Total……………………7,679
U.S. Navy
MQ-4C BAMS 13
MQ-8B Firescout/TUAV 37
RQ-21A STUAS 4
RQ-21A Scan Eagle 122
UCLASS 4
Total……………………180
U.S. Marine Corps
RQ-7B Shadow 52
RQ-21A STUAS 100
Total……………………152
GRAND TOTAL…….8,392
Taken form this article.
http://www.matthewaid.com/post/29822072373/how-many-unmanned-drones-is-the-u-s-flying
"...Can anyone out there tell me why the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps need 2,000 more unmanned drones over the next five years given that the last U.S. combat troops are scheduled to be withdrawn from Afghanistan either late next year or in early 2014?..."
The main supplier of combat drones is General Atomics. They supply the Predators, Gray Eagles (or Warriors) and the larger 'Reaper' drones (MQ-9s) - so far they've supplied about 15 Billion dollars of drones ! That's a lot of M.I.C. in the mix right there. They operate out of San Diego California, thousands of highly paid jobs! I wonder how hippy California feels about the Drone war : )
Because in their neo-colonial wars they only worry about their own casualties...if there are no Americans dying, there is no war, its never mattered how many foreigners die...0 -
Neutronale wrote: »Because in their neo-colonial wars they only worry about their own casualties...if there are no Americans dying, there is no war, its never mattered how many foreigners die...
We may see a change in that attitude now that the Peshawar High Court has ruled that US drone strikes are illegal and war crimes.
Here's how The Independent describes the case:A Pakistani court has declared that US drone strikes in the country's tribal belt are illegal and has directed the government to move a resolution against the attacks in the United Nations.
In what activists said was an historic decision, the Peshawar High Court issued the verdict against the strikes by CIA-operated spy planes in response to four petitions that contended the attacks killed civilians and caused “collateral damage”.
Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan, who headed a two-judge bench that heard the petitions, ruled the drone strikes were illegal, inhumane and a violation of the UN charter on human rights. The court said the strikes must be declared a war crime as they killed innocent people.
“The government of Pakistan must ensure that no drone strike takes place in the future,” the court said, according to the Press Trust of India. It asked Pakistan's foreign ministry to table a resolution against the American attacks in the UN.
“If the US vetoes the resolution, then the country should think about breaking diplomatic ties with the US,” the judgment said.
...
Clive Stafford Smith of the London-based group Reprieve, which has supported the case, said: “Today's momentous decision by the Peshawar High Court shines the first rays of accountability onto the CIA's secret drone war.”
He added: “For the innocent people killed by U.S. drone strikes, it marks the first time they have been officially acknowledged for who they truly are - civilian victims of American war crimes.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/pakistani-court-declares-us-drone-strikes-in-the-countrys-tribal-belt-illegal-8609843.html
Here's more from the ruling itself:i. “to order the respondents to immediately assert its State Sovereignty and convey forcefully to the US in clear terms that no further drone strikes will be tolerated on its sovereign territory;
iii. to provide redress for the criminal offences committed by those involved inside and outside Pakistan in drone operations and in particularly involved in the strike on 17th March 2011 by directing the relevant authorities that criminal charges, under the relevant laws of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan be registeredagainst those responsible;
The ruling hits hard at the US:The United States through self framed opinion labeled these foreign elements as their enemy. The U.S decision making troika, the President, Pentagon & CIA have joined hands to carryout drone strikes in these areas on spy information to hit & kill these elements, however, the ratio of killing of foreign elements is negligible while local civilians, non-combatants, casualties are shockingly considerable, beside damage caused to the properties of the local population, their households and other moveable properties including cattle heads, in great number, is a painful phenomena. The most shocking, gruesome & goriest side of these ruthless strikes is that the degree of precision is hardly maintained and why the figures, given above, would prove that these are carried out at random and innocent civilians casualties mostly of infant babies, pre-teen & teenage children, women & others including their properties are hundred times greater than those, killed alleged to be militants.
...
The forming of an opinion by the CIA that these strikes target groups of men, who are militants having links with terrorist groups, is based on figment of imagination and till date no tangible, reliable & convincing proof has been furnished to that effect by the U.S Authorities including CIA.
It also mentions the US practice of targeting first responders:The international observers’ analysis unrebuttably proved that through drone strikes in Pakistan territory residential houses, vehicles, worshippers in mosques, mourners in funeral procession and even rescue personnel have been attacked with brutality.
And the ruling concludes:. “That the drone strikes, carried out in the tribal areas (FATA) particularly North & South Waziristan by the CIA & US Authorities, are blatant violation of Basic Human Rights and are against the UN Charter, the UN General Assembly Resolution, adopted unanimously, the provision of Geneva Conventions thus, it is held to be a War Crime, cognizable by the International Court of Justice or Special Tribunal for War Crimes, constituted or to be constituted by the UNO for this purpose.
...
iii. That the civilians casualties, as discussed above, including considerable damage to properties, livestock, wildlife & killing of infants/suckling babies, women and preteen children, is an uncondonable crime on the part of US Authorities including CIA and it is held so.
v. The Government of Pakistan and its Security Forces shall ensure that in future such drone strikes are not conducted & carried out within the sovereign territory of Pakistan.
vi. The Government of Pakistan is directed to take the matter seriously before the Security Council of the UNO and in case it does not succeed there if VETTO (sic) power is unduly exercised by the US Authorities then, urgent meeting of the General Assembly be requisitioned through a written request to resolve this menace in an effective manner.
ix. [v]In case the US Authorities do not comply[/b] with the UNO Resolution, whether passed by the Security Council or by the General Assembly of UNO, the Government of Pakistan shall severe all ties with the USA and as a mark of protest shall deny all logistic & other facilities to the USA within Pakistan.
http://www.peshawarhighcourt.gov.pk/images/wp%201551-p%2020212.pdf
The world will never be at peace as long as the US continues acting as a law unto itself,so I'm pleased to see Pakistan is finally taking action against the US terror strikes that have killed so many innocent people.0 -
I'm pleased to see Pakistan is finally taking action against the US terror strikes that have killed so many innocent people.
Pakistan hasn't done anything. A mid-level court has issued a ruling which Pakistan's government may appeal to the next level.
It is interesting, however, as a matter of judicial process, that the Chief Justice feels fit to recommend to the government what actions it should take on the international political stage. Most 'Western' judicial systems would see fit to rule on law, not engage into politics.0 -
Advertisement
-
Human rights groups say the US may be guilty of war crimes after finding evidence of civilian deaths.Leading human rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have raised serious concerns about the legality of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen.
The two organisations have conducted separate investigations into specific strikes to highlight how civilians are being killed. Such killings, they claim, are a violation of international law.
The groups say the US must investigate all drone attacks that kill civilians and those responsible for such ‘unlawful killings’ should be disciplined or prosecuted.The Amnesty report, Will I be next? US drone strikes in Pakistan, names a group of 18 labourers, including a 14-year-old boy, killed in a drone attack on Pakistan in July 2012. This is the first time that all victims of the strike have been identified.
The group of men had been gathered for their evening meal when the first strike hit. In July field research by the Bureau found that this strike was then followed by another attack that killed rescuers trying to retrieve bodies. This was confirmed by Amnesty’s research.The Human Rights Watch report, Between a Drone and Al-Qaeda, looks at attacks in Yemen and similarly highlights incidents where civilians were killed. It looks at six strikes that together killed 82 people, including at least 57 civilians.
The strikes investigated included a drone-assisted airstrike on a passenger van which killed 12 civilians. Human Rights Watch spoke to 23-year-old Ahmad al-Sabooli, whose father, mother and 10-year-old sister was killed.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/10/22/human-rights-groups-say-civilian-drone-deaths-violate-international-law/
Amnesty also says that Germany helped the US with 'illegal' drone attacks.The report accuses Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government of providing the US intelligence service with data on drone targets, including the mobile phone numbers of victims.
According to information provided by retired Pakistani intelligence officials, relating to this year and 2012, “secret services in Germany and in other European states have worked together with the USA and its drone program in Pakistan”.
The Amnesty report stated: “With the deployment of armed drones, the USA has once again broken international law. Some of the attacks even amount to war crimes.”
Verena Harpe from the German branch of Amnesty International condemned the programme as “a license to kill, which completely ignores human rights standards and international law.”
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20131022-52515.html
So Obama has killed lots and lots of people who were not involved in armed activity and posed no threat to US. The constant buzzing in the sky from drones is also said to traumatise the local population.“The tragedy is that drone aircraft deployed by the USA over Pakistan now instill the same kind of fear in the people of the tribal areas that was once associated only with al-Qa’ida and the Taliban,”
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/usa-must-be-held-account-drone-killings-pakistan-2013-10-22
The drone program like much of US foreign policy is incredibly shortshighted. Drones are not going to stop further terrorist attacks against Americans, they will just create more enemies than the US can deal with.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9A7pJwyMXo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNCLR-U9fII
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLBDqy6pj28
Advertisement