About them doggone drones.
- Thread starter Gramps
- Start date
Very accurate summary of part of the very knotty problems surrounding extrajudicial killings.
I'm sensing that the upcoming UN inquiry into droning will further illuminate the dilemma you so correctly defined and place US droning within the context of global opinion and international law -- it's apparent contradictions and seeming voluntary nature notwithstanding. We're dealing with a legal and a moral dilemma driven by a multi-theater global war in which the evidence against the enemy (including US citizens) is secret, and the targeted killings are not subject to judicial review.
I applaud President Obama's decision to release the kill list memo to the House and Senate intel committees allowing the selective targeted killing of American citizens. Probably the pressure to release the contents of the memo to the public will be overwhelming considering the administration's claim.
The scale of the problem is approximately thus:
according to estimates by "the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, CIA strikes in Pakistan between 2004 and 2013 have resulted in as many as 3,468 deaths, including up to 893 civilians and 176 children. In Somalia, the BIJ estimates up to 57 civilians have been killed in covert US strikes. In Yemen, the bureau estimates as many as many as 178 civilians have been killed. In one December 2009 case, US missiles carrying cluster bombs struck a rural community in the al Majalah region of southwestern Yemen, reportedly killing 41 people, including at least 21 children." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/07/obama-kill-list-memo-release-rights-groups
At a minimum, 31.5% of the drone deaths were civilian.
There have been 4 American citizens killed in US drone strikes (3 in 2011 and 1 in 2002). The death in 2002 is regarded as collateral but that assertion is not certain. I am uncertain as to whether Awlaki's 16 yo son was an intended or collateral killing of a US citizen. That's a 25%-50% error rate.
The American public is entitled to know what the reasons are when the US government decides to kill an American citizen and what safeguards against mistakes or becoming collateral damage. It seems to me that representatives of other nation's citizens might want to know what those reasons and safeguards are as well.
Hitler won an election. Then he dismissed the Reichstag....that was when he became a dictator. Just what legislative body has Obama dismissed to assume full control of the government and eliminate elections or alter the election process as to render it undemocratic?
Limitless power? Bullshit.
How many warrants were issued for the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941? By the way, Yemen is a war zone. As was Berlin and Tokyo in WWII. If the enemy command structure is in Yemen or Somalia or the tribal areas of Pakistan....then that is part of the war zone....offering those who would conduct an organized campaign of violence against our country a safe haven is nuts.....We did that during the Korean war and it made no sense.
If the leaders of Al Qaeda want to murder innocent civilians and then go home a sleep with their wives, with their kids in the next room.....it seems you think we should give them the benefit of that sanctuary. I do not. If you run down the list of kids killed by predator attacks you'll find Pakistani news reports of just how many Al Qaeda or Taliban leaders or fighters were in the building and killed with them. Those cowards must know that hiding among women and children will not keep them safe.
Limitless power? Bullshit.
How many warrants were issued for the pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941? By the way, Yemen is a war zone. As was Berlin and Tokyo in WWII. If the enemy command structure is in Yemen or Somalia or the tribal areas of Pakistan....then that is part of the war zone....offering those who would conduct an organized campaign of violence against our country a safe haven is nuts.....We did that during the Korean war and it made no sense.
If the leaders of Al Qaeda want to murder innocent civilians and then go home a sleep with their wives, with their kids in the next room.....it seems you think we should give them the benefit of that sanctuary. I do not. If you run down the list of kids killed by predator attacks you'll find Pakistani news reports of just how many Al Qaeda or Taliban leaders or fighters were in the building and killed with them. Those cowards must know that hiding among women and children will not keep them safe.
we were attacked. we have fought back. some of those who attacked the US, the UK, Spain, Bali, Nairobi...are still alive and living in the tribal areas of Pakistan. You offer no alternative to the course of action taken against Al Qaeda....instead you go off into conspiracy nonsense about how we attacked ourselves to justify invading a country so we could build a pipeline. Fycking ridiculous.
Bin Laden wanted a war with the west. He thought he'd provoke an attack that would unite the Muslim world and with himself in the lead, would defeat the west and bring the Koran and conversion to Islam to the world. He was a meglomaniac who fancied himself a religious scholar.
I personally think we should have declared victory when he was killed and told the Afghans "Thanks, your on your own now"....but there is a certain logic to the idea that the Taliban would take over again and could make it their mission to pay us back, with or without the help of Zawahiri.
NightSwimmer
Senator
You may not have any gas pipelines in Britain... Yet!
But just wait until the US starts killing all of your innocent children with drone attacks. Then BP will get on the ball and start building them!
Hide & Watch!!!
But just wait until the US starts killing all of your innocent children with drone attacks. Then BP will get on the ball and start building them!
Hide & Watch!!!
LeRoy_Was_Here
Senator
You're right. I stand corrected. So it was the tyrannical over-reaching Nazi-like central government that killed him, at the behest of that evil Kenyan Muslim Commienist Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
Thanks!
LeRoy_Was_Here
Senator
The exceptions seem to be piling up.....
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
QT thinks "the internet" is a much more trustworthy source than the dreaded "MSM". She seems unaware that "MSM" was a term coined by FOX for their idiot viewership to explain why their reports never line up with facts. "Every news organization but FOX is in a conspiracy against FOX that's being directed from the White House." People who like being lied to like the biggest lies best of all. Every winger who says "MSM" buys into this one.
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
Another exception. Bush's use of drones wasn't even on my long list of complaints about Bush. We didn't have to dig and conflate for reasons to criticize Bush's consistently disastrous policies, both foreign and domestic. A method of avoiding more American casualties than necessary was hardly the focus of Bush detractors. We were a little more concerned with him invading and occupying the wrong country, causing tens of thousands of casualties for naught, while OBL slipped away.
Fair enough. I agree that the issue of drone strikes was not the focus of most of the criticism of the Bush administration. I don't think the issues surrounding droning and targeted killings based upon secret evidence are likely to go away -- both as a domestic issue and especially as a international issue.
I am surprised that so many posters appear to have little reaction to the administration's extraordinary claim that it has the right to kill American-citizen-enemies and citizen-enemies of foreign nations by secret, non-reviewable evidence.
The problem lies in the droning decision making process, not the missile delivery platform.
Queen Titania
Senator
What do either MSM or Fox have to do with me ? They are American not British. I have neither in my home nor ever have had either in my home or any other US news source. The Arm of the American 're education' program reaches far but not everywhere.
I cannot link you to books nor people nor a lifetime I can only link to internet links
You don't read them though do you ? 'cos you love your ignorant State.
Your only arguments against me are always to belittle, to demean, ridicule, insult.
They are no arguments they are just the words of the minions of an insidious Empire.
LeRoy_Was_Here
Senator
No, Queenie. Our arguments against your positions are based on reason. We try to reason with you, just as we would try to reason with a person who insisted that the Earth was flat.
Sadly, there seems to be a growing number of people who are simply impervious to reason.
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
What do either MSM or Fox have to do with me ? They are American not British.
Rupert Murdock is not a Brit? BBC is not considered by wingers to be a part of the MSM?
Perhaps a bit of "American Reeducation" is in order.
Rupert Murdock is not a Brit? BBC is not considered by wingers to be a part of the MSM?
Perhaps a bit of "American Reeducation" is in order.
Z
zzigzzag
Guest
Where do you get your contention that the criteria for targeting is "secret"? I don't think that is accurate. The operations are secret until they've been accomplished, of course. We don't have public debates about specific, pending military strikes. But I do believe the administration is more than willing to tell you afterward who they targeted and why. They're not just taking out Republican voters, rich people and gun owners like they surely would if acting with confident impunity.
Queen Titania
Senator
No Murdock is not a British Citizen, he is an Australian, his mother was a very wealth Jewish heiress
I do not have a TV.
I do have a Radio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Radio
Sky is Murdocks, only a percentage of people have/pay for Sky, mainly for Sport.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_television_stations
Germany and France, Spain and most countries dub foreign programs/films.
Belgium and the Nederlands do not, they use subtitles and they have Turkish, Yugolaslav, Arabian and all ..... as is, no subtitles no dubbing, as is .... Britain no longer dubs but uses subtitles
Queen Titania
Senator
Condescension is not the definition of 'reasoning'
