Un demand drone strike investigations

[IamtheRock3]

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/231593-un-demands-investigation-of-us-drone-strikes-in-pakistan

What you guys think

One hand..we do run a risk of overusing it due to the fact it can be done with remote, and no us solider at risk..and where far away from the bloodshed. That and where only going to give SO MUCH of a shit about casulties that not American


on the other, think it better then the other way of missles strike. To me how we been doing probally cause LESS casulties before. Cause right now we been using small strike teams and Drones at very specific locations. Though does need to be oversight in these things

[Tony XerxēsTWD Stark]

I know I found this article pretty hilarious.

http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/a66df0f7af79fb470006c723dc7f20c6/brother-of-al-qaeda-chief-killed-in-air-strike-calls-us-drone-attacks-inhumane

Brother of al-Qaeda chief killed in air strike calls US drone attacks 'inhumane'
Thursday, June 7th 2012, 06:51 AM

The brother of al-Qaeda's second-in-command, who was killed in a US drone strike, said Washington's use of the remote-controlled weapons is inhumane and makes a nonsense of its claims to champion human rights.
US officials said on Tuesday that Libyan-born al Qaeda operative Abu Yahya al-Libi was killed by a drone strike in Pakistan, in what was described as a major blow to the militant group.

The attack is likely to fuel an increasingly fierce debate about the legality and morality of the drones, which have become one of the chief US weapons against al Qaeda but which opponents say stretch the definition of the legitimate use of lethal force.

"The United States talks human rights and freedoms for all, but the method they used to kill him is savage," Abu Bakr al-Qayed, brother of al-Libi, told Reuters on Wednesday in a telephone interview.

"The way the Americans killed him is heinous and inhumane," he said, speaking from the town of Wadi Otba, south of the Libyan capital. "We are in the 21st century and they claim to be civilised and this is how they take out people."

"Regardless of my brother's ideology, or beliefs, he was a human being and at the end of the day deserves humane treatment," he said.

For years considered a covert Central Intelligence Agency programme, the unmanned aircraft can be remotely piloted from thousands of miles away and can fire missiles at targets at the push of a button.

White House officials say there is nothing in international law that forbids the use of the drones and that, by killing dangerous insurgents, they are making Americans safer.

That view has been challenged by authorities in Pakistan, who are angry because many of the strikes have happened on their soil, and by rights campaigners.

Civil liberties groups argue that the strikes are illegal because they take place outside an active battlefield, meaning the rules of law which allow a combatant to kill their opponent do not apply.

The United States and security analysts say al-Libi was a veteran militant and leader of operations for al Qaeda, a group responsible for the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on US cities as well as dozens of other acts of violence.

His brother offered a more nuanced account, describing how al-Libi had gone from being a chemistry student in Libya to hiding out in the mountains of Pakistan's North Waziristan region.

He said his brother, also known as Mohammed Hassan al-Qayed, had been radicalised by his treatment under Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader killed in an uprising last year. Gaddafi's security forces routinely arrested anyone who strayed from officially approved Islam.

"We come from a great line of students of religion, we are a religious family and we all studied Islamist jurisprudence at school. I am an Islamic studies professor," al-Qayed, 57, told Reuters.

"He was a very bright student and always had high marks and he wanted more out of his studies, so was forced to leave Libya ... The last time we saw him was in 1990 when he left to study abroad because he was oppressed in Libya due to his beliefs."

"The last time we spoke to him was in 2002, and since then we only know what's happening with him through the media," the brother said.

"I never heard him speak of killing innocent people and don't believe he would ever condone it. He was a Muslim, and we don't kill people without reason."

"My brother was attracted to his ideology because he was oppressed and we were all oppressed and saw great suffering from Gaddafi's regime."

In what one analyst said was a retaliation for al-Libi's killing, a bomb exploded outside the offices of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya's eastern city of Benghazi early on Wednesday. There was only slight damage.

Al-Qayed said he knew nothing about the attack in Benghazi. Asked if he expected any reaction inside Libya to his brother's killing, he said only: "I don't know, but the Muslim is the brother of the Muslim."

He appealed to Pakistan's government and humanitarian agencies to find his brother's body and bring it back to Libya "so we may bury him here as a martyr."

Where was this guy's outcry against Al-Qaeda's actions against civilians?

I think there are plenty of benefits to drone warfare, but I do agree it can become a slippery slope.

[safado]

Well, one of the first tules of war is that soldiers and commanders have to make the hard decisions and civilians and civil rights groups have the luxury of safely sitting in their protected by the military cities complaining after the fact that this or that is inhumane. When everyon loses their minds after a horrible attack like 9/1ll eople will say things like "lets nuke medina" but once the soldiers do the hard work - its all about "the atrocities." Sure things have to be policed, as in all warfare.

    Personally I think the beneft of a drone is it is less likley to snap after 4 tours of duty and chop up enemy soldiers into pieces from shell shock. The slippery slop e is ALWAYS there - you are talking about being the watchtower between murder and killing combatants -

[IamtheRock3]

Well, one of the first tules of war is that soldiers and commanders have to make the hard decisions and civilians and civil rights groups have the luxury of safely sitting in their protected by the military cities complaining after the fact that this or that is inhumane. When everyon loses their minds after a horrible attack like 9/1ll eople will say things like "lets nuke medina" but once the soldiers do the hard work - its all about "the atrocities." Sure things have to be policed, as in all warfare.

    Personally I think the beneft of a drone is it is less likley to snap after 4 tours of duty and chop up enemy soldiers into pieces from shell shock. The slippery slop e is ALWAYS there - you are talking about being the watchtower between murder and killing combatants -

To me the risk..is the distance it put us between those where bombing

Sense we dont see them..and  less risk of public outrage, we might be more opening to bombing areas with people around it. That said this going to part of the new ways we fight wars in the future. So I consider all this growing pains

[Khellendros]

I know I found this article pretty hilarious.

http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/a66df0f7af79fb470006c723dc7f20c6/brother-of-al-qaeda-chief-killed-in-air-strike-calls-us-drone-attacks-inhumane

Where was this guy's outcry against Al-Qaeda's actions against civilians?

I think there are plenty of benefits to drone warfare, but I do agree it can become a slippery slope.

HAHA! Yeah guys, we need to start beheading people on camera. Lets get our shit together, alright??

[safado]

So I consider all this growing pains

all things considered war is never without its hard moral costs. How many soldiers have been traumatized by being in a situation where they had no choice to continue an action or risk the lives of their squadmates and ended up killing innocents as a result without having a choice?

[AP]

Seems perfectly reasonable.  When we start attacking places like the Phillipines who are supposed to be our allies, something is wrong.

[safado]

We're not attacking the Philipines.

We have special forces on the ground fighting Abu Sayeff and we are bolstering their military as a counterbalance to Chinese naval power - but where did you hear we are attacking the Philippines

[AP]

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/03/05-drones-philippines-ahmed

[safado]

The U.S. drone strike, targeting accused leaders in the Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah

That wasn't an objective journalistic piece. That was an editorial with an agenda
The article laid out the info but pushed the idea of Muslim sovereignty and the spirit if the people while essentially condemning American imperialism

I take issue with that. The Philippines is a US ally and a counterweight to the growing conflict in the regions waterways. There are really two things at stake here

1 - we are pouring enormous amounts of money into the Philipines as an ally. What use would that be if it was an endless sinkhole in which the country itslef couldn't organize itself to help further our interests, That's was lopsided alliances are for in the first place. The Philippiines and every army in the vicinity fear the growing clout of the Chinese submarine fleet and the increasingly crowded waters of the Indian ocean. The US is the guarantor of maritime traffic and economic security

If the Philpppines hs an internal problem with terrorism undermining its governance - its our problem. The article was, IMO, wrong-headed to think that this is simply an extension of the bull-headed and simplitic "war on terror." This is the US making sure its ally is internally stable enough to be trustworthy and loyal to our demands as we prop it up with our military and aid packages

2 - Even if we wanted to avoid meddling we wouldn't. Vhina has officially positioned itself as a regional hegemon and we really can't afford to send a message of weakness. Countries are taking sides right now. We have military installations in Japan, Korea, Philippines and a lot of other southeast asian regions. If we don't guarantee there security against each other - that is to say we aren't the arbiter of stability in a crowded ocean filled witth competing navies - China will gladly fill the role.

  The consequence of that will be an emboldened Chinese navy which then forms economic coalitions and neocolonial outposts (essentially our job) and essentially steals our market share. US strategy is built on naval hegemony and we cannot afford to sacrifice that in any way, shape or form

3 - It is terrible that the drones killed innocents. No one is denying that. The fact of the matter is however that this is the new face of modern warfare and its still in its growing pains. Over times drones will get smarter and smarter while soldiers will be utilized in more combat appropriate roles where special forces and infantry are needed. At current it doesn't make a whole ot of sense to put million dollar investments and lives known as special forces soldiers in harm's way when a drone can do the job.

       All forms of warfare were tragically ineffective at first and were perfected over time.

A lot of World War 1 and 2 tanks and aircrafts were deathtraps to the soldiers operating them and oftentimes blew themselves to smithereens befoe they were able to even get the enemies attention

Look at the F-22 and some of the low orbit spacecraft we have  a short 60 or so years later

This too shall pass

[AP]

No it won't pass.  It will create new terrorists for the future.  This time around , people would be much more likely to sympathize with them.  Meanwhile, lawmakers will get more nervous and go farther and farther to creating a police state.

[safado]

I disagree

This is no different than any other military action and citizens questioning the actions of the people making the decisios on the ground. The mere fact that it was reported, criticized and discussed makes me question howit can go towards creating a police state.

I absolutely agree that government is getting a worrying amount of power at the moment which is creating real risks in terms of domestic {Big Brotherness", but this doesn't really add anything to that equation IMO. It's the same as if a group of special forces soldiers sent a mortar into an erroneous target

As for the "creating terrorists" part. I think that's naive. No matter what the US does: we could start requiring Muslim education classes and demand that Islam is declared an official US religion, terrorists will still attack

1 - Within the Muslim world itslef, within the simple confines of the Levantine and Persian Gulf, Muslim terrorists attack other Muslims all the time. Shiites attack Sunnis. Sunni's attack Sufi's. Hashemites slaughter Palestinians. If Muslims are willing to slaughter other Muslims for differences in how their own religion is practiced, what makes you think that anything the US would do could change that

It can't and it wont

Terrorism will remain a problem but the more serious problem is whether or not we let it define our government plicy to a disproprotionate degree.

2 - Domestic terrorism - Terrorism isn't the sole province of Arabs. There are plenty of domestic isolationists and nuts who are willing to cause trouble because they are either insane or have an agenda. The real danger in terrorism right now is domestic. It's much easier for law enforcement to find a large, organized group that is trying to commit a spectacular attack and freeze its assets or lant a mole,then it is to stop a random nut from walking into a mall and shooting 20 innocent people dead

    Remember Timothy McVeigh?

That soft terrosim oesn't need much and its what we relly have to worry about. A drone attack is a military erro with other consequences

[IamtheRock3]

Well Saying terriost will be created either way is an ALL or NOTHING idea

Sure terriost will be created either way, but we can bring the numbers down

We should worry about collataral damage, and hurt non combatants

and just changing the names of non combatants to COMBATANTS is kind of bullshit. And I'm an Obama fan..but that kind of bs

That said think Drones at a better alternative then how we did it before missle. Cause we ALWAYS wrecked shit, and there was always collatoral damage.

To me drones bring that number down

[AliceRunsThingsSon]

I love how the Israeli completely uses terrorism and Islam interchangably.  Do you think there is inherent bigotry that occurs as a result of being Israeli?  Drones will not create NEW terrorism... drone strikes ARE acts of terrorism.  If the people piloting the drones were reading trhe Koran while they operated the joystick you'd probably be sufficiently outraged.

[safado]

Well Saying terriost will be created either way is an ALL or NOTHING idea

Sure terriost will be created either way, but we can bring the numbers down

We should worry about collataral damage, and hurt non combatants

and just changing the names of non combatants to COMBATANTS is kind of bullshit. And I'm an Obama fan..but that kind of bs

That said think Drones at a better alternative then how we did it before missle. Cause we ALWAYS wrecked shit, and there was always collatoral damage.

To me drones bring that number down

Essnetially - you have to fight for your national interests and this is an atrocity, there isn't any dount about that. I don't see it as an act of hatred or bigotry. The technology will improve and intelligence will improve and less things like this will happen.  Essnetially its a tragedy above all.

I love how the Israeli completely uses terrorism and Islam interchangably.  Do you think there is inherent bigotry that occurs as a result of being Israeli?  Drones will not create NEW terrorism... drone strikes ARE acts of terrorism.  If the people piloting the drones were reading trhe Koran while they operated the joystick you'd probably be sufficiently outraged.

Drone strikes are acts of terrorism? I make it a point to be considerate but you always force me to make exceptions. Drone strikes got one of Al-Qaeda's highest ranked leaders in Yemen. I hope you understand how big a deal that is - Al-Qaeda Yemen is capable of rattling the Arabian Peninsula and the interests of the entire world economy. You sure you're ok with 15$ gas?

I didn't use the words Islami and terrorism interchangeably you chowder head. I mentioned Timothy McVeigh as a terrorist and he was a God-fearing Christian last I recall.

  If you do want to nitpick - why did the US spend 10 years and 1 trillion dollars and ruin its strategic position in the world which it(we) are regaining now?? Was it because we hate the Arabic language and its infernal 3 consonant system? I'd wager that the US overreacted to Islamic terrorism and went to where it is centrally located.

            Are you really suggesting that the Islamic world isn't in a phase of extended radicalism resulting in terrorism??

I didn't say all Islamists are terrorists either. Their are plenty of terrorists in the Klu Klux Klan, white supremacist groups, Los Zetas and Los Sinoloas drug cartels to go around. You'd be lying though, if you didn't admit that at this point in history most terrorism comes from people with their own interpretation of the Koran. That's not bigoted, its realstic.

It would be bigoted if I said it was an Arab issue - whcih it certainly isn't as the Persians, Uighurs, Chechnyans and other groups have gone out of their way to prove

Soplease say something intelligent

[IamtheRock3]

Well think the promblem with drones strikes now..is they act like you dont have to go through the same forthought as you do when planning a missle strike

Sometime I think they act like if you use drones on a country..that doesnt count as going to war with them

I think a lot of these situation they have information that a terrorist there, but it not always a 100 percent...it like. It could be someone we need dead..but there also a chance there could be a hospital there

its a dice rolls

But I think we have tendacy to be more WILLING to roll the dice if its an arab nation

[safado]

I'm not sure about that. I think Arab nations have less respect for human life and have no issues using hospitals as human shields

I also tend to see US intelligence as being weak in human intel, relying on technology as opposed to say, the Russians - who are far better at human intel. IOW, I don't see it as a willingness to take Arab life as less important, but rather incompetence on the part of our intelligence services

[AP]

The US is great at creating our own enemies even in other parts of the world.  Aren't you from South America?  You should know better than us how we create more hostilities with our actions.

If you think that not a single Fillipino or Pakistani are going to decide to take up arms after seeing their friends or family members getting shot up for a war they had nothing to do with, then you're the nieve one.

[safado]

I'm a New York Israeli American living in South America

People hate the United States for the power it has and lust for its lifestyle for the opportunity it represents.

You are simplifying this into a satisfying moral issue. Could we create terrorists: yes. Should we let the Philppiines sink into an Abu Sayyef controlled hole where a terrosit organization becomes a parallel power to the government: NO

Mexico is dangerous because the level of organization ofthe major drug cartels and its soldiers is equal to or superior to the federal government, which is already corrupt. Trust me when I tell you latin American police officers are oftentimes as bad as the criminals

If a sovereign nation is a strategic interest of ours, and everything in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific rim is ABSOLUTELY our responsibility like it or not - we have no choice but to participate.

So, in amoral sense, you are correct. We failed in proper intelligence work, killed innocent people and misued our drone technology

That isn't the main reason why people become terrorists.

The naivety s in thinking that the world is a bright and sunny place where we can choose to not get involved in conflict because we're geographically isolated in North America. Geopolitics are like taxes - inevtiable. countries will always jockey for power and this is the end result. Innocent lives will be lost and msitakes will be made

Yet there is no option to not get involved

[IamtheRock3]

Dont think anyone saying the world is a sunny place or saying dont get involve

But we cant just tossed the rule book out of the window when its conveints though

Those arent our only two choices.

People going to hate us no matter what
But then again we can ignore that least SOME of the reasons are legitimate

[safado]

Well, I Do agree that we can't throw the rule book out.

The solution is restitution to he victims to start followed by an examination of hat went wrong

The future of warfare will inevitably move in the direction of not harming non-combatants as technology becomes precision-driven and warfare moves towards its true purpose; which is to destroy the military capabilities of the enemy. Warfare up until now has lacked the precision to accurately hit military targets with accuracy, think WW2 bombs being dropped with no ability to target the enemy once dropped, so it was necessary to simply destroy entire cities and civilizations

 The drone technology is a huge step in the direction of combative-oriented warfare. Drone tech should make it easier to hit enemy soldiers and not civilians. Their should be an investigation into what went wrong and unless it was simply gross negligence on the part of the drone operators, no one should be prosecuted. War is always waged that way. We have to do nasty, ugly things to win and the public wants their warfare sanitized and clean like it is in the movies. We don't care for the realities of daily bloodshed because in our own very prosperous nation - we don't live with the imminent threat of daily life-threatening violence

We always hang out the wrong people to dry as a sacrificial offering to the public who demands their warfare sanitized and their reality tv fake.

Having said that if an investigation shows that the drone operator simply acted with gross negligence, than of course he should suffer consequences. That is inexcusable. If the operator od the drone simply shrugged his shoulders and said," they all look the same to me," then he is a war criminal. So, I agree with everyone saying that there has to be real culpability on the part of the drone operators. I don't agree with people u in arms that war is ugly and nasty and that our military is operating around the world doing ugly things. Don't think our enemies aren't doing the same and don't think that we can simply walk away. We are too powerful to do so and if we did, our enemies could and would grow powerful enough to threaten us and our real, actual lives.

[IamtheRock3]

one step forward to that, is dont play word games

by naming everyone in the area non combatants..so you want get int trouble

I think thats the part that make it shady

but I do agree this IS THE FUTURE of warefare. So minus well get use to it

and

it causes LESS civilan death then we use to. So we have gotten a lot better then we use to. The media better at calling out bullshit..and even if there not there more forms of media out there.. And the milltary not as hardline as they use to

Way we use to fight cause a lot more death. These drones can be bad..but nowhere near as bad as it could be

So I am not shitting on the millitary. Also aware nations take advantage of our kindess. Hell they hooks bombs to retarted people...litteraly retarded people cause we might be hesitant to shoot them on sight. So yea its kind of hard to accept their complaints..when they dont deal with the shit at thier own front yard

To me warefare against terriosim..we probally going to be using a combo

of precesion milltary strikes, and strike teams a lot more

[MTL76]

I was having a conversation with a friend recently about the recently ended civil war in Sri Lanka (I just got back from there) and the following question came up: has there EVER been a war or conflict in which Geneva conventions have been strictly followed? I just don't think it's possible. One or both sides will give lip service to them, and they may dissuade eggregious violations, but at the end of the day you have two groups of people trying to kill each other. Warfare is by its nature cruel, horrific, senseless and violent. If it wasn't it wouldn't be war. The idea that these drone strikes are somehow "out of bounds" is crazy, far worse things happen in conflicts regularly. You're fucking trying to kill people here. Again I'm not opposed to trying to control the scope of war but to claim this is beyond the pale seems a bit unrealistic.