US speaks on drone policy

[Aky786Journalist]

President Obama's counter-terrorism adviser has given the most detailed explanation so far of America's use of drones to kill members of al-Qaeda.

In a speech to a Washington think tank, John Brennan said the strikes were helping to win the war on the militant network.

President Barack Obama wanted to be more open about the practice, Mr Brennan added.

The comments come in the week marking a year since Osama Bin Laden's death.

BBC Washington correspondent Paul Adams says this is not the first time the Obama administration has confirmed the use of drone strikes.

FULL STORY

Drone strikes are ethical. Hmm, not surprised they lack a few ethical morals when saying drone strikes are ethical.

Obama justified them in a web chat ages ago, clearly no compassion for the human cost on the ground and damages down to communities in areas where they don't have the capability to build things up asap.

Pakistan's government are the biggest slimeballs, doing a double face in protesting when they clearly allow drone strikes and Zardari and co his corrupt team take the dollars.

[JerseyLily]

http://www.orbooks.com/catalog/drone-warfare/

It's always ethical to kill Muslims for the Neo Cons and Zionists

[fred]

I was reading of a strike that murdered about 40 men at a village meeting.
Not much said about the impact of those deaths.
I'm guessing village meetings are similar to the moots we have out here.
That means the breadwinners of the households are all sat around, drinking tea and chewing out what will happen to the stray cows and whatever.
So - who looks after the women and children they left behind?
Did the murderer's keepers ever pay compo and did those same murderers ever get brought to trial?

Sod all chance.

[europa]

fred wrote :

ever pay compo

The issue of compensation is a sticky legal one but given the massive aid from the US to Pakistan - the means are available. Foreign Policy magazine in the last year had an article by a legal scholar that outlines the dilemma. http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts...rones_to_court

[TRUREL]

Did people read the article?

[europa]

TRUREL wrote:

Did people read the article?

Don't you know reading is subversive; it faciltates understanding . Pre-suppositions might just get modified . BTW- Good to see you

[TRUREL]

I was reading of a strike that murdered about 40 men at a village meeting.

Sod all chance.

Putting aside the question of whether a war should be fought against the Taliban which I think is a topic for a different thread.

Do you think that drones should be banned from modern warfare because they are unethical/ineffective?

Do you think they are more or less likely to result in the deaths of civillians than either convential troops on the ground or air strikes?

[europa]

As the number of incidental non combatant casualties comes down and the size of the drones gets smaller = both of which are happening at the moment - there are a number of conflicting views . In

Drones and the ethics of war

, the views are laid out and forces one to evaluate .

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande...s-of-war/6290/

Drones are viewed in a much more positive light

Drones for human rights

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/op...=3&ref=opinion

If, as an example drone technology was available in WW11, no one could have denied knowledge of what was happening and Hitler could have been eliminated. Each of us has to wrestle with the moral decision, as to whether a surgical strike contributes to the greater good and limits massive deaths and widespread destruction.

[b3l13v3r]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NA27Df01.html

The great accuracy of drone strikes and how they have managed to evade the american sponsored pakistani 'taliban'

[TRUREL]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NA27Df01.html

The great accuracy of drone strikes and how they have managed to evade the american sponsored pakistani 'taliban'

According to that link in 3 attempted strikes they may well have killed the "most wanted".
That isn't a damming indictment of drone strikes.

[fred]

Do you think that drones should be banned from modern warfare because they are unethical/ineffective?

Do you think they are more or less likely to result in the deaths of civillians than either convential troops on the ground or air strikes?

Interesting.
I'll send an unmanned bomber across a sovereign border into the US from mexico.
I'll use that weapon to attack and kill someone I suspect of a crime.
Nothing legal like a trial or anything and, if I make a mistake, I'll say it's fine because I was after criminals.

What do you think the US comments would be like?

[europa]

Interesting.
I'll send an unmanned bomber across a sovereign border into the US from mexico.
I'll use that weapon to attack and kill someone I suspect of a crime.
Nothing legal like a trial or anything and, if I make a mistake, I'll say it's fine because I was after criminals.

apples and oranges - there is absolutely no comparison between Mexico and Pakistan . The US stated policy of targeting terrorists ( classified enemy combatants ) , wherever they may reside, is legal in defined circumstances, according to most legal scholars, if , and only if ,the country they reside in is unwilling or unable to deal with the problem themselves. Pakistan is an interesting case ; certain sections actively support US intervention despite pretending not to, while others, like sections of the CSI appear to be acting as Fifth Columnists .

The US problems with Mexico are completely different and stem from common criminality and illegal immigration. No one is being harboured in Mexico that threatens to destroy civilian aircraft or massacre New Yorkers. The President of Mexico is working hand-in-hand with US authorities to restrict criminality and go some way toward solving the illegal immigrant problem. Indeed many SA countries request US help in dealing with
situations ( criminality surrounding narcotics mainly ), which should be their own internal responsibility, but since it affects the US - there is cooperation in joint ventures.

[gohar]

If the intention is to highlight the issue of the ethics of using them, then it is a valid analogy, because part of that is highlighting how USA or Britain or their public might feel if they continually became collateral damage in such attacks.

[b3l13v3r]

According to that link in 3 attempted strikes they may well have killed the "most wanted".
That isn't a damming indictment of drone strikes.

They're not very accurate if they can't get their target in 3 strikes. especially with all the collateral damage involved. The strikes would probably be better aimed at the contractors present in pakistan such as raymond davies.
It's obviously not enough that many of the pakistan military have lost their lifes as have local tribesmen in american connotated divde and rule schemes, but young children have to also lose their lives in mindless terrorist drone attacks to pressurize pakistan into reopening nato supplies into and out of pakistan.

[fred]

apples and oranges .............

The intention, as mentioned by a another poster, was to consider the moral issue of crossing a border to impose a death penalty on someone suspected of a crime.
No trial, no published evidence, just 'suspected' terrorists. Of course, they always get it right, just ask the innocent dead.

Perhaps the US could start executing all suspects in all cases.
I wonder how much money would be saved by scrapping all that messing about with evidence and trials because the cops simply gunned down every suspect.
That pesky Sixth Amendment would have to be scrapped.

The US problems with Mexico are completely different and stem from common criminality and illegal immigration. No one is being harboured in Mexico that threatens to destroy civilian aircraft or massacre New Yorkers. .

Really?
I wonder if you compare the loss of life in the twin towers to that caused by drugs (Abuse and violence), which would win in the numbers dead stakes.