Pakistani family of drone strike victim gives harrowing testimony to Congress
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
WikiLeaks shows US pressure for war crimes immunity - https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/55239
Example 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/soldier-gets-life-witho...
Example 2: http://www.collateralmurder.com/
Example 3: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340207/I-didnt-thin...
Sadly, the second part of your comment still remains true. These wars (plural), are pretty similar to all wars because US soldiers and forces have at times been found indulging in the same acts - rapes, killings, indiscriminate bombings, torture - that rampaging armies do.
Example 2 also doesn't bolster your claim. I've never seen any proof that the US has ever had a policy of targeting civilians. Yes, collateral damage exists, but that's not the same thing.
Now, if you can produce something that talks about official policy to target civilians, that's a different story. Please, produce that.
If I take your argument to the extreme, it'll be tough to hold any army anywhere in the world to account. Because they can always attribute it to "individuals".
Individuals acting on their own committing crimes is much different than an official policy, ordered to be enforced by the military chain of command.
Yes. What you are leaving out is the rest of the story. Let's go to a neutral source:
Leaked U.S. video shows deaths of Reuters' Iraqi staffers http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journa...
"It showed an aerial view of a group of men moving about a square in a Baghdad neighborhood. The fliers identified some of the men as armed.
WikiLeaks said the men in the square included Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, who were killed in the incident.
"The gathering at the corner that is fired up on has about nine people in it," Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks spokesman, told reporters at the National Press Club.
The gunsight tracks two of the men, identified by WikiLeaks as the Reuters news staff, as the fliers identify their cameras as weapons. Military spokesman Turner said that during the engagement, the helicopter mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.
The helicopter opened fire on the small group, killing several people and wounding others. Minutes later, when a van approached and began trying to assist the wounded, the fliers became concerned the vehicle was occupied by militants trying to collect weapons and help wounded comrades escape." [Emphasis mine]
Now, going to the second link, we read the description of the video as such:
"5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff." [Emphasis mine]
Was the killing done without judgement? Without consideration? They weren't just firing on civilians. They were firing on what they could make out as militants.
You can argue that the rules of engagement are wrong. That we can't just rely on the eyes on the ground to give us reports. That someone saying they see a weapon is not a strong enough reason for allowing them to open fire. You can argue that we have to wait until people are fired upon, or die, before reacting. But your comment just spreads misinformation.
Of course. It's not like it's some new practice either...
And I don't think they've cared much since at least the firebombing of Japan and Germany towards the end of WWII, when it became blatantly clear that they could get away with indiscriminately killing hundreds of thousands of civilians without consequences at home.
I'm not 100% sure if this is considered "collateral damage", but I think this explains the situation in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage#International...
War sucks. Innocent die.
Cue the pedantic replies.
Oh, the irony.
That's a pedantic distinction, if I ever saw one.
Not to mention nothing about it is correct (perhaps that's why you felt the need to use quotes for the word military).
Such strikes are not done as part of war and do not target military targets -- they were used in places like Pakistan (the US was not at war with it last time I checked) and at functions such as weddings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrik...
I'm not sure whether the airstrikes were performed by manned aircraft or drones.
What is the US policy on weddings?
I used it in quotes because I was thinking of cases where I'm not sure how it would be classified. Assumed base of operations that turns out to be false? Regardless, nothing as sinister as you imply.
As for not being at war with Pakistan, would that make a difference to you?
I think you missed coldtea's point. I suspect he pointed that out because he thought it would make a difference to you. e.g., "War sucks. Innocent people die." ... But we're not at war with Pakistan. So what? Drone strikes suck. Innocent people die?
Palestinians who blow up busses in Israel are hitting military targets (all israeli citizens undergo compulsory military training and are part of a reserves contingent ergo are legitimate military targets.
Or:
Flying a plane into the pentagon.
I mean its not as clear cut as you want it to be. The dresden bombings didnt clearly target military objects. Its not as simple as classification when the one doing the classifying is so willing to act in a hypocritical grey zone.
At the end of the day, my original argument was that the delineation of military vs. civilian targets allows us to ignore our roles as citizens of a nation-state at war. I also think that many conflicts get dragged out and result in a lot more pain and suffering than if we had more flexibility.
cup has a great point. We think that the Twin Towers were civilian targets but to those flying the planes, everyone in the West was probably fair game and the "enemy" even if we don't think so. Similarly, those people at weddings that were bombed probably thought they weren't fair game but we thought since they decided to host some terrorists at their wedding that they are complicit in their activities and thus are fair game. How do we classify "civilians" that may not be actively waging war but are part of the support network either through willful ignorance or by becoming human shields (like in Mogadishu, etc.)?
There also isn't a war in Waziristan. Your comparison to WWII is total BS
I 100% agree that accidental killing of unintended targets is terrorizing the native population of countries where this happens, and also leads to creating more terrorists/enemies of the US than it possibly eliminates.
Jeremy Scahill wrote a ~700 page book about this very subject that came out a few months ago. Dirty Wars. It is worth reading.
Completely agree with the second part of your comment though. But accidental killing of unintended targets should at least : -be something the US apologize for, if possible directly to families, if possible by the highest rank official. -be compensated even if money doesn't heal wounds like that. If there are no consequences (both political and financial) to those strikes, targeting errors will never be a big deal.
How would this achieve the goal? The Taliban and AQ members don't care about innocents dying.
As for WWII, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#World_W...
If it was a war legally, would targeting civilians be okay?
Please explain to me how saying that an invasion is not a war is a minor detail.
Innocents will die either by terrorists or may be by US drones.
You couldn't have picked a worse example. Innocent civilians were widely targeted in WWII. Entire cities were subjected to terrorist bombing campaigns specifically to "break the morale of the population which occupies it" and "make the people conscious of constant personal danger."
WWII pretty much invented large-scale terrorism justified as military necessity.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_...
Which is why the user above responded. US justification for these strikes is because they are deemed "military targets," and often the intel behind the strikes themselves is extremely tenuous. While on not the scale of WWII firebombing the terrorist aspects of it cannot be ignored.
Much US government documentation on their strikes speaks of the psychological aspects of those under a drone's strike zone. They cast a terrorized population in terms of being "less prone to supporting Alqaeda Top Man #85032" or other nonsense that only addresses the social impact in the narrowest terms to ensure victory can be declared in some way by the author.
In the end the population below still feels terrorized by the presence of "justice from above" with no due recourse. This is completely aside from what those in the US government wish to call it.
I certainly define it this way. Many others do, too.
Now it could be a war crime, and indeed arguably we tried Milosevic for less.
Can I take it you're unaware that the word was coined to describe a state?
With these senseless attacks, US is spreading hate and putting US citizens at risk.
Putting 21 year old kids* brought up on video-games (esp the "Call of Duty" and "Battlefield" crop) all their lives in charge of drones with very video-game like setup and interactions sounds like a pretty good recipe for disaster[1].
* Yes, I know they are not all that young but I have seen photos in the news and I would be surprised if they were any older.
[1] "Scenario fulfillment" implicated in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
The Iran Air disaster had nothing to do with "video games" and "21 year old kids". It was a case of mistaken identity during a very turbulent time in the region. I think it is a red herring to refer to that disaster when talking about drone strikes.
Being trained in various scenarios combined with a high-stress situation resulted in one of the crew misinterpreting the data and claiming the plane was diving (like an attack run) instead of climbing (which it was really doing)
Basically it is scientific way of saying something like "force of habit" (with more to it, that is a bit of a dumbed-down view)
Which I can easily see transferring to drone pilots raised on a diet of CoD, Battlefield etc.
(There is a very good documentary about the entire Iran Air thing which talks about it, you can see it on youtube.)
It was posted three days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6617732
At the same time I wish the political class that shaped the history of Pakistan take a tough and straight look at themselves and the role their decisions (in particular unfettered encouragement of Jihadism and building this identity of "wronged population of righteous Muslims") played in dragging their country to such a pathetic state where their sovereignty doesn't mean shit. A state when one of their erstwhile allies kill their citizens with impunity and political class doesn't do much about it apart from some token grandstanding. Much as I want this navel gazing to happen, I am also aware that ruling political classes of countries are typically so sociopathic that they are incapable of feeling responsible, a fact made very convenient now that there is mean old US to point to.
India managed to avoid this trajectory. Rather than patting ourselves on the back, I am acutely aware of how close a shave it was and still is. There are strong political forces in India that want to make it a Hindu hegemony. Their tools of propaganda are just the same and quite effective, the same "wronged population of righteous Hindus that meant and did nobody any harm". If that happens we wont be that far away from a Hindu version of current Pakistan. This thought terrifies me.
@einhverfr I am replying here because I strongly suspect that what I say will touch many a nerve and will lead to a long thread hijacking the original post, and by that I dont mean you personally. Please feel free to respond in the same way. Encouraging the wronged muslim identity and consequent Jihadism was very much an "in center" phenomena in Pakistan rather than the machinations of some fringe local state. Note the use of 'was' these things go back several decades in history. I think Pakistan under Jinnah would have fared much better had he lived longer.
@r0h1n spot on.
@mcantelon sure they did, a valid question is what did people in charge then do about it.
@prometheuspk India escaped and does, but just barely. It's a complicated mess, there are political parties that exploit the fact that many in India want to avoid the religious hegemony. These parties have been getting away with things that they should not be allowed to get away with. This fuels its own blowback...You mention Malala. Malala for US is I think convenient PR fodder, something useful to screen/decorate their drone program with. I dont even think they do it conciously. Everyone wants to see themselves as compassionate and fair.
@zzsleepzz thank you for illustrating my point.
Heh! there you go. downvotes start rolling in, did not expect any different though.
Interesting, the story suddenly drops out from first page inspite of 90 upvotes in less than 3 hrs. Seems it just got flagged. That I did not see coming.
In the end, what's needing is an understanding that drones have two problems fundamentally associated with them. The first is that they are low-knowledge operations and thus the fact is that it is likely that the drone operators don't have a clear picture of what is really going on, and the second is that a single drone operator may be operating many drones at once, increasing the likelihood of mistakes.
If we are going to engage in targetted killings, nothing beats boots on the ground.
That said, no country ought to be above international law, even when they are targeting hapless & innocent civilians of a failing or despotic regime. That is the primary point here.
http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rea...
In addition to that the general population has been led to believe that everyone is out to get them (i.e. The righteous Muslims). You should have seen the stuff said about Malala. Even she was some kind of conspiracy against Muslims.
The TTP is real, no doubt about that (you'll find deniers here too). But the political resolve lacks because of no majority public support of the army operation in Waziristan.
India was saved from the hegemony due to public resolve to fight for it. Here everyone is either too demotivated or on the wrong side of the equation.
I would factor in self-righteousness too (e.g. Mumtaz Qadri). Once that entitlement mindset ends, only then will things become clear to the public.
EDIT: BTW you should check this (http://on.fb.me/17XcV7p) out to see the Malala bashing & the distrust of anyone but themselves.
There's no such thing as Hindu extremism or Hindu terrorism. It's just a reaction to atrocious Islamic terrorism activities that happened/happening in India. The increase of jihadi extremists and sleeper cells in India are what that terrifies Indians.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-04-15/india...
And this to your other comment on this thread, I admire your will to engage in a dialogue. I have become much too jaded. Its as if people have become rigid and unquestioning of the history they want to believe in. Google Sunderlal report you I think will find it interesting.
It argues its campaign is conducted "consistent with all
applicable domestic and international law". Unofficial
reports, however, have suggested that hundreds have been
killed in Pakistan alone, with up to 200 children killed.
What international laws allow this to continue?
If I were a citizen of a country where these remote drone attacks were taking place and no war has been declared, I would be campaigning to put every person directly responsible on the list of criminals wanted internationally and have them arrested by my allies if those criminals travel to my allies' country.
I would be far more comfortable with what is going on if there were a requirement that all drone operators had to be citizens of the countries being targeted. They can be supervised and trained by Americans, but the trigger must be pulled by a fellow countryman. If we can't find people to do that, then we need to cease what we are doing or formally declare war via a Congressional vote. Alternatively, we could request or even fund that Pakistan and other countries send in police to arrest those responsible with a drone on standby and only send in the drone if the person refuses to be arrested peacefully. The moment they fire back on the Pakistani police with weapons, the drone would be sent in to resolve the conflict. Either way, fellow citizens of those targeted should be directly involved in these attacks or they should not occur at all. Sentencing people to death without trial is un-American.
What happens when we've killed as many innocents as were killed on September 11th on US soil? Death of innocents from above is simply unjustified.
It is not our country. Let them rail against America without us pouring gas on the flames by us being there.
I will go back to more startup related comments.