Drone attacks just and legal: White House

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

m.guardian.co.uk

m.guardian.co.uk****Last October I was at a jirga in Islamabad where 80 people from Waziristan had assembled to talk about the US Predator drones that buzz around overhead, periodically delivering death by Hellfire missile. A jirga is the traditional forum for discussing and resolving disputes, part parliament, part court of law. The turbaned tribal elders were joined by their young sons on a rare foray out of their region to meet outsiders and discuss the killing. The isolation of the Waziris is almost total – no western journalist has been to Miranshah for several years.

At our meeting I spoke as the representative westerner. I reported the CIA claim that not one single innocent civilian had been killed in over a year. I did not need to understand Pashtu to translate the snorts of derision when this claim was translated.

During the day I shook the hand of a 16-year-old kid from Waziristan named Tariq Aziz. One of his cousins had died in a missile strike, and he wanted to know what he could do to bring the truth to the west. Atthe Reprieve charity, we have a transparency project: importing cameras to the region to try to export the truth back out. Tariq wanted to take part, but I thought him too young.

Then, three days later, the CIA announced that it had eliminated “four militants”. In truth there were only two victims: Tariq had been driving his 12-year-old cousin to their aunt’s house when the Hellfire missile killed them both. This came just 24 hours after the CIA boasted of eliminating six other “militants” – actually, four chromite workers driving home from work. In both cases a local informant apparently tagged the car with a GPS monitor and lied to earn his fee.
Last week officials in the Obama administration talked to the New York Times about the “Secret Kill List” drawn up for drone assassinations. Democratic strategists in an election year calculate that the article will prove a vote-winner, dispelling any notion that Barack Obama is soft on terror. The administration voices wanted to leave the impression of an involved and committed president who reads Thomas Aquinas’s theory of the “just war” in between personally vetting the kill list.

Mitt Romney dubbed Obama “Dr Strangelove” back in 2007. It may have been a rare, perceptive insight. A decision by the smartest man in the room is only as good as the information that he receives, and no matter how accurate the shiny new missile, if it’s aimed at the wrong person it will hit the wrong target.

**It is easy to understand how the CIA slaughtered Tariq and many other innocent victims. Those who press the Hellfire buttons are 8,000 miles away in Nevada and are dependent on local “intelligence”. Just as with Guantánamo Bay, the CIA is paying bounties to those who will identify “terrorists”. Five thousand dollars is an enormous sum for a Waziri informant, translating to perhaps £250,000 in London terms. **The informant has a calculation to make: is it safer to place a GPS tag on the car of a truly dangerous terrorist, or to call down death on a Nobody (with the beginnings of a beard), reporting that he is a militant? Too many “militants” are just young men with stubble. At least 174 have been children.

**The New York Times reports that Obama first embraced a policy of taking no prisoners in order to avoid the embarrassing sore of Guantánamo. Then he accepted a method for assessing casualties that “counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants” unless there is explicit posthumous proof of their innocence – because they are probably “up to no good”.

**
While Obama’s policies may go down a treat in the US, they are fomenting radicalism abroad, the very policy not only undermining our way of life but provoking an extremist hydra with many more heads.

Some sane voices penetrate the gloom. Starting last summer, Cameron Munter, Obama’s ambassador to Islamabad, was required to give a thumbs up or down assessment of each drone attack on Pakistani turf, as if he were an emperor in the Colosseum. “He didn’t realise his main job was to kill people,” said a colleague. Munter is quitting his job early this month because his diplomatic mission has been rendered impossible.

The dearth of US domestic criticism is astounding. The last time a president indulged in an illegal bombing campaign in the sovereign territory of allies (Richard Nixon in 1969, in Cambodia and Laos), the policy nearly got included in the articles of impeachment. We should remember that history, as the Vietnamese capitalised on the backlash, helping to impose the genocidal Khmer Rouge on Cambodia, and a single-party regime that endures 40 years later in Laos.

Ultimately, Mitt Romney faces a dilemma: what must a Republican candidate do to outflank the extremism of his Democratic opponent? The rest of us must be concerned as well: we are sleepwalking into the Drone Age, and few people are debating the dire consequences.

Clive Stafford Smith is director of the charity *Reprieve](http://www.reprieve.org.uk/), which has a project intended to provoke debate on drones.*

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

9 drone strikes since the NATO summit (12-13 days).

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

Under Obama administration, one drone has hit Pakistan on every four days.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

**ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Tuesday summoned the US charge d’affaires to the foreign ministry to convey its “serious concerns” over drone strikes, a ministry statement said, a move that could further escalate tensions between the allies. **The move came after Pakistani intelligence officials said that a US drone strike may have killed an al Qaeda leader, Abu Yahya al-Libi, in Pakistan’s northwest.
Drone attacks are a major sticking point in talks aimed at improving ties between Washington and Islamabad.
The foreign ministry had earlier called the attacks “illegal” and said they violated the country’s sovereignty.

============
Pakistan conveys

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

al-Qaeda commander killed in drone strike…

Abu Yahya al-Libi, al-Qaeda second-in-command, was killed in a US drone attack in Pakistan earlier this week, US administration sources say.

US officials said on Tuesday that the Libyan-born al-Libi had recently been considered by US counterterrorism experts as the No 2 in the core al-Qaeda group led by Ayman al-Zawahiri.
It is difficult to independently confirm the reports of al-Libi’s death. However, if the US claims are true, then al-Libi would be the latest of more than a dozen high-ranking al-Qaeda commanders killed during the past year.

The US state department had set a $1m reward for information leading to al-Libi.
US and Pakistan sources said on Monday that al-Libi was the target of a deadly drone attack in Pakistan’s North Waziristan region. However, the US sources could not confirm whether he was killed in that raid.
Zawahiri has headed the group since al-Qaeda’s founder, Osama bin Laden, was killed last year in a US commando raid on his hideout in Pakistan.

‘Versatile leader’
A US official described al-Libi as “among al-Qaeda’s most experienced and versatile leaders”, saying that he “played a critical role in the group’s planning against the West, providing oversight of the external operations efforts”.
The drone raid that targeted al-Libi killed 15 people, according to Pakistani officials, who said more than half of the victims were “foreigners”, most of them Arabs.

US says drone killed al-Qaeda commander - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

Us says that no confirmation about that yet, they were saying the same in 2009 I guess.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

he has been killed many times before :(

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house


he got 9 lives, you know! :D

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

according to champions of human rights sep 11 perpetrators are still in Tribal areas of Pakistan and hence they will keep on attacking Pakistan!

NEW DELHI: Pentagon chief Leon Panetta said Wednesday that the US would continue to attack al Qaeda in Pakistan despite complaints from Islamabad that the drone strikes violate its sovereignty.“We have made it very clear that we are going to continue to defend ourselves,” Secretary of Defence Panetta said in India a day after the US announced the killing of al Qaeda’s number two Abu Yahya al-Libi.
“This is about our sovereignty as well,” Panetta added, arguing that al Qaeda militants who orchestrated the September 11 attacks on the United States were in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
“The leadership of those who were involved in planning this attack are located in Pakistan, in the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas),” he said.

US to keep up attacks on al Qaeda in Pakistan: Panetta – The Express Tribune

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

Panetta has said that only one alqaeda leader is left now, we will see if they stop the attacks after they kill him or not. I don't see them subsiding after that Infact it seems these attacks could continue many years down the road and could have very dangerous consequences for the country. On the one hand it's panetta trying to portray as if they are targeting alqaeda, a few days back I was reading article about obamas kill list in which it's mentioned that the president considers each and every adult person of the tribal belt to be a potential terrorist until its proven otherwise.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

Mr panetta I agree that Americans are carrying out drone attacks against alqaeda and they will continue until they are routed.

Mr panetta please tell us when you guys will punish the convicts with Americans for the last 10 years?

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

Ali, I don't understand your point of view (other than that you don't agree with the deployment of drones). Why wouldn't you blame this on the Pakistani military / establishment for following reasons:

1) Until last year the Pak all drone attacks were conducted with knowledge of and in many cases, based on cooperation from the Pak military
2) Even now, as then, if Pak military had FULLY cooperated and captured terrorists instead of abetting them, drones will have been unnecessary
3) Given these, how else do suggest NATO/USA prosecute this war?

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

^ when will they prosecute the people in their custody?

Truth about Iraq war, I wonder when we will find out the truth about 911.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

How effective are US drone strikes? - Inside Story Americas - Al Jazeera English

How effective are US drone strikes? - Inside Story Americas - Al Jazeera English

When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, his predecessor George W Bush’s global ‘war on terror’ was renamed an ‘overseas contingency operation’.

But while the rhetoric has been less incendiary, far from abandoning the tactics of the Bush years, Obama has intensified the ferocity of attacks on the US’ enemies.

[TABLE=“class: float right, width: 250”]

“Drones are a weapon, drones are not a strategy. You are not going to destroy al-Qaeda, the ideology on which it rests and other groups as well, simply through the use of drones.****”
**- Clifford May, the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
**

Under the command of the man who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, the use of unmanned drone attacks has surged. And according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, so has the number of civilians killed.

A New York Times article has revealed that the US president personally approves or vetoes each drone strike after consulting closely with security officials.

There is no direct risk to American military personnel. But critics, including the Pakistani government, point out that the drone strikes are imprecise and violate the sovereignty of the countries they strike.

Hard and fast numbers on drone strikes are hard to come by. However, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 409 drone strikes have been carried out under the Obama administration, killing at least 2,114 people, compared to 53 drone strikes carried out under the Bush administration, killing at least 438.

During a video conference on the social networking site Google+ in January, Obama was asked about the increase in the number of drone strikes under his presidency and whether the loss of civilian life was worth it for US interests.

[TABLE=“class: float right, width: 250”]

“This whole campaign of strikes has never been debated publicly by Congress because, technically, it remains a secret.****”
- Scott Shane, a national security reporter for the New York Times
**

The president responded by saying: “I want to make sure the people understand, actually, drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties. For the most part they have been very precise precision strikes against al-Qaeda and their affiliates … It is important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash. It’s not a bunch of folks in a room somewhere just making decisions.”

But in a recent New York Times article, unnamed former senior intelligence officials criticised the White House civilian death estimates. One of them said: “It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants … They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”

So can the US’ reliance on drone strikes be justified?
Inside Story Americas, with presenter Shihab Rattansi, discusses with guests: Scott Shane, a national security reporter for the *New York Times *who co-authored the piece on Obama’s ‘Secret Kill List’; Clifford May, a former director of communications for the Republican National Committee and president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; and Ray McGovern, a security analyst with the CIA for over 25 years.

[TABLE=“align: center”]

“It doesn’t make any sense. There is no one that will tell you that this will do anything other than make a lot of people angry, a backlash will come back, and everybody who’s been killed will have an extended family of 100 people, who will, inevitably, at some point, get access to this country.”
Ray McGovern, a veteran CIA security analyst

[HR][/HR]
FACTS: US DRONE STRIKES

  • Critics say policy of targeted killings violates international law
  • Critics also say that the criteria for identifying terrorists is too lax
  • The US mounts drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and Afghanistan
  • Drone strikes have caused widespread public anger in Pakistan
  • Pakistan’s government has demanded an end to US drone strikes within its borders

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

US drone attacks in Pakistan: UN backs probe into civilian casualties – The Express Tribune

US drone attacks in Pakistan: UN backs probe into civilian casualties

http://i1.tribune.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/390225-Drone-1339073879-171-640x480.JPG

I see indiscriminate killings, injuries of civilians in any circumstances as human rights violations, says Navi Pillay.

****ISLAMABAD: **The UN human rights chief on Thursday called for a UN investigation into US drone strikes in Pakistan, questioning their legality and saying they kill innocent civilians.

**
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay made the remarks at the end of a four-day visit to the country, where US drone strikes have on average targeted militants once every four days under US President Barack Obama.

Islamabad is understood to have approved the strikes on al Qaeda and Taliban targets in the past. But the government has become increasingly energetic in its public opposition as relations with Washington have nosedived.

“Drone attacks do raise serious questions about compliance with international law,” Pillay told a news conference in Islamabad.
“The principle of distinction and proportionality and ensuring accountability for any failure to comply with international law is also difficult when drone attacks are conducted outside the military chain of command and beyond effective and transparent mechanisms of civilian or military control,” she said.

She said the attacks violate human rights.

“I see the indiscriminate killings and injuries of civilians in any circumstances as human rights violations.”

The UN human rights chief provided no statistics but called for an investigation into civilian casualties, which she said were difficult to track.
“Because these attacks are indiscriminate it is very, very difficult to track the numbers of people who have been killed,” she said.

“I suggested to the government that they invite the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions and he will be able to investigate some of the incidents.”

She said UN chief Ban Ki-moon had urged states to be “more transparent” about circumstances in which drones are used and take necessary precautions to ensure that the attacks involving drones comply with applicable international law.

“So therefore I stress the importance of investigating such cases and ensuring compensation and redress to the victims.”

Washington releases few details about its covert drone programme in Pakistan but on Wednesday US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta described them as self-defence and promised that they would continue to target al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

^ This guy seems to be a Taliban sympathizer.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

^ yes maybe :frowning:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all

It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

seems like US drone strategy works like this, every guy who is carrying a gun, shoot him!!

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

I really doubt that these cases will be investigated!!

Re: Drone attacks just and legal: white house

so why not Pakistani military cooperate with the US and supply correct intel about terrorists so that they can be taken out instead of necessitating drones?