Skip to main content

View Diary: WATCH: The Case Against Drones (60 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If there is such "precision," why do many (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilJD, aliasalias, bronte17, Kentucky Kid

    innocent people end up dead, including women and children?

    •  greater precision does not equal precise. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

      by i understand on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:48:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They're "precision" weapons, (0+ / 0-)

      not "accurate" weapons.

      High precision, low accuracy
      (Riffing on i understand above)

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:12:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  gooderservice - for several reasons (0+ / 0-)

      The primary one is that the strikes are usually at a building where a terrorist has been observed. The munitions used need to be powerful enough to kill everyone in the building to be certain the terrorist is also killed. Unfortunately our enemies don't live alone and innocent women and children are unfortunately also killed and injured. What the missiles fired by drones are good at is striking a specific building, and limiting the damage to the surrounding neighborhood.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 07:04:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your terrorist is someone else's freedom fighter (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sunspots, Simplify, PhilJD

        And taking out entire families (multi-generational) just to get one "terrorist" is not acceptable in a willy-nilly fashion.

        The use of drones for extrajudicial killing is NOT established in international law and the US has flaunted this audacious authority to pre-emptively declare someone a terrorist anywhere in the world and wipe out entire groups of innocent people extrajudicially.

        Civilian deaths and extrajudicial killings and international law
           [It is] alleged that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. [U.N. consultant, professor of human rights] Christof Heyns … has described such attacks, if they prove to have happened, as war crimes. I would endorse that view.
        The investigation’s launch comes just as the Obama administration finalizes a manual on guidelines for targeted killings, further cementing kill lists into the U.S. national security apparatus.

        According to the U.K.-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism, not only will the U.N. team examine drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen,  but also “drone strikes by U.S. and U.K. forces in Afghanistan, and by Israel in the Occupied Territories. In total some 25 strikes are expected to be examined in detail.”

        “The plain fact is that this technology is here to stay,” Emmerson told reporters. “It is therefore imperative that appropriate legal and operational structures are urgently put in place to regulate its use in a manner that complies with the requirement of international law”

        One may live without bread, but not without roses.
        ~Jean Richepin
        Bread & Roses

        by bronte17 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:14:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  bronte - I don't believe that any drone strikes (0+ / 0-)

          are done willy-nilly. Freedom fighters who are enemies of the United States are viable targets. How many civilian deaths are acceptable to kill a single terrorist is a difficult question and we likely have a different answer.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 10:40:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site