UN investigator presses US to publish drone attack data - Polidicks

[IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70568000/jpg/_70568533_70566572.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE] A United Nations investigator has called on the US to make public its data about drone strikes and civilian casualties. Ben Emmerson has spent the year travelling to countries where the strikes have taken place, and speaking to US officials. He says the involvement of the CIA creates "an almost insurmountable obstacle to transparency". The Obama administration's policy of using drones in places such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen - chiefly to carry out deadly missile attacks against suspected militants - has come under increasing criticism. Mr Emmerson, a British lawyer who acts as the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, has prepared an interim report for the UN's Human Rights Council on his work since January 2013. In the report he writes that he cannot accept that national security considerations justify the US withholding its own data on civilian casualties from the pilotless operations. He also says there a number of legal questions relating to the use of drones which urgently need to be resolved internationally. However he does conclude that, if used in compliance with humanitarian law, remotely piloted aircraft are capable of reducing the risk of civilian casualties in armed conflict. The BBC's security correspondent, Gordon Corera, says the fear highlighted in Mr Emmerson's report is that without any consensus on how drones could be used, their use will become increasingly widespread and dangerous. Drones may be controversial, but the signs are that they are here to stay and many more countries may begin to use them, our correspondent adds. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24583909[/url]

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42568434]Fantastic idea, why don't we just publicize our troop movements as well?[/QUOTE] yeah why should anyone know how many civilians are killed

What's worse, being secretive about collateral or accepting civilians are being killed?

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42568465]Because the media will just completely disregard all the lives that were potentially saved due to us killing those militants and instead raise hell over the moral implications of a few drone strikes.[/QUOTE] This is literally just feeding the cycle and creating more angry terrorists - ultimately it makes people hate the USA more than anything.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42568465]Because the media will just completely disregard all the lives that were potentially saved due to us killing those militants and instead raise hell over the moral implications of a few drone strikes.[/QUOTE] Yeah those rescuers and funeral attendants needed to die to save lives.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42568465]Because the media will just completely disregard all the lives that were potentially saved due to us killing those militants and instead raise hell over the moral implications of a few drone strikes.[/QUOTE] are you serious right now Are you justifying a few deaths because the the main target that was killed may or may not cause more deaths

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42568497]We fucked up decades ago, accepting a noninterventionist policy(regardless of how much I support it), wouldn't solve the problems in the middle east.[/QUOTE] So you're just going to make it worse instead, smart.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42568465]Because the media will just completely disregard all the lives that were potentially saved due to us killing those militants and instead raise hell over the moral implications of a few drone strikes.[/QUOTE] if anything most American media would disregard the dead civilians. also the fact that you think the moral ramifications of America's actions should be simply glossed over really says a lot more about this than i ever could

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42568434]Fantastic idea, why don't we just publicize our troop movements as well?[/QUOTE] I fail to see how publicizing past drone strikes and civilian deaths puts any troops in danger or gives the enemy an advantage as you seem to be implying.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;42568725]I fail to see how publicizing past drone strikes and civilian deaths puts any troops in danger or gives the enemy an advantage as you seem to be implying.[/QUOTE]What if the terrorists have time machines? What if they use the data from the drone strikes to find out small, insignificant details that allow them to go back in time and stop them, fucking up the present!? Will we then have to send agents from the Temporal Security Annex back in time to correct the damage?

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42568465]Because the media will just completely disregard all the lives that were potentially saved due to us killing those militants and instead raise hell over the moral implications of a few drone strikes.[/QUOTE] You cannot justify non-combatant casualties in the 21st century.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42568434]Fantastic idea, why don't we just publicize our troop movements as well?[/QUOTE] It's a fucking drone. So what if it gets shot down or some shit? things are dishonorable as hell most of the time.

They'll just lie about it like they did with the surveillance scandal. Secret services are notoriously unreliable when it comes to answering questions like this, especially the USA's.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42568465]Because the media will just completely disregard all the lives that were potentially saved due to us killing those militants and instead raise hell over the moral implications of a few drone strikes.[/QUOTE] I'm sure every Pakistanian is super thrilled about having killing machines flying over their heads being operated by a completely different country

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42568465]Because the media will just completely disregard all the lives that were potentially saved due to us killing those militants and instead raise hell over the moral implications of a few drone strikes.[/QUOTE] Those damn cameramen dying sure saved others. Fuck off.

[QUOTE=Glent;42570473]You cannot justify non-combatant casualties in the 21st century.[/QUOTE] Because we haven't seen real combat. In a real war, in a total war, the people capable of the means of continuing the war effort are just as much a target as the soldiers on the frontlines. Just saying that, civilian casualties in these sorts of situations are horrible though and we need to fix the systems.

I find the U.S government so corrupt.

[QUOTE=-n3o-;42574677]I find the U.S government so corrupt.[/QUOTE] I'd go over how most methods you guys champion to make it less corrupt would make it more corrupt but eh.

[QUOTE=Swilly;42574799]I'd go over how most methods you guys champion to make it less corrupt would make it more corrupt but eh.[/QUOTE]Huh?? I wouldn't call the US government corrupt, it just can't progress in a good way while the republicans are there.

[QUOTE=Badballer;42574814]Huh?? I wouldn't call the US government corrupt, it just can't progress in a good way while the republicans are there.[/QUOTE] There's that as well.

[QUOTE=-n3o-;42574677]I find the U.S government so corrupt.[/QUOTE] the whole thing is more badly designed than corrupt, but it's badly designed because a few corrupt people + a few incompetent people = the most horrid policies possible

[QUOTE=Cone;42575153]the whole thing is more badly designed than corrupt, but it's badly designed because a few corrupt people + a few incompetent people = the most horrid policies possible[/QUOTE] be honest now, the way corporations pretty much rule the US, the fact the military industrial complex can get away with shit like the F-35 being ridiculously overfunded, pretty much shows there is massive corruption involved, it may not be as ridiculous as other countries(like my own :v:), but really now.

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;42575187]be honest now, the way corporations pretty much rule the US, the fact the military industrial complex can get away with shit like the F-35 being ridiculously overfunded, pretty much shows there is massive corruption involved, it may not be as ridiculous as other countries(like my own :v:), but really now.[/QUOTE] well yeah but my point is that the system lends too much power to corrupt people, and the only things stopping them are badly designed policies. so it's a system that rewards corruption through ineffective, poorly maintained safeguards

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;42568434]Fantastic idea, why don't we just publicize our troop movements as well?[/QUOTE]Because infantry positions could be used for nefarious purposes, where this would simply be information for the sake of clarity and openness. You can't really use information on drone strikes for offense and ambushes.

If we take out so many high-ranking insurgent officers with such few civilian casualties then why not release the numbers?

Terrorism causes drones which causes terrorism.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;42576976]Terrorism causes drones which causes terrorism.[/QUOTE] Drones don't cause terrorism, bad policy causes terrorism.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;42577042]Drones don't cause terrorism, bad policy causes terrorism.[/QUOTE] Bad policy causes drones causes terrorism causes bad policy.

I still don't understand how it is that drones supposedly produce more civilian casualties than more conventional means of attack. You've got hours to loiter before pulling the trigger and the missile pretty much always hits the target. It seems like that would make civilian casualties a gross act of negligence rather than just a sad fact of working in a combat environment.

It's almost comical how many people are killed by drones and no one knows about it or doesn't talk about it. More than [B]3000[/B] dead. A large portion of those just being civilians nearby.