Obama 'drone-warfare rulebook' condemned by human rights groups - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;38593883]Great contribution as always. How about you read the part where it says drones minimize collateral damage and reduce the risk of civilians getting caught in the middle of the shitstorm? Of course it isn't "humane" but it sure as shit is better than hundreds of civilian casualties due to direct military intervention.[/QUOTE] How about you read about how we target funerals and weddings, and the reason that drones "minimize collateral damage" and "reduce the risk of civilians getting caught in the middle of the shitstorm" is because the Military redefines the definitions of 'collateral damage' and 'civilians' to cover up any innocent deaths and keep the statistic as low as possible despite the fact that it's basically a made up statistic made to make morons like you feel better about 'living in the best country in the WORLD' WOOO!!

[QUOTE=Ybbats;38596309]How about you read about how we target funerals and weddings, and the reason that drones "minimize collateral damage" and "reduce the risk of civilians getting caught in the middle of the shitstorm" is because the Military redefines the definitions of 'collateral damage' and 'civilians' to cover up any innocent deaths and keep the statistic as low as possible despite the fact that it's basically a made up statistic made to make morons like you feel better about 'living in the best country in the WORLD' WOOO!![/QUOTE] I never said the drones weren't used for questionable attacks, I said that they are preferable since they cause significantly less deaths than the full scale military invasions the US Military has done in the past. Also if you even bothered to read my other posts you'd know that I don't approve of US warmongering at all. Drones or not. All I was saying is that drones are far more precise and cause less innocent deaths, I never actually supported their use. Also I'm not even american.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;38596118]it happens on a really regular basis actually.[/QUOTE] Its actually the reason our entire government is tits up right now. Small radical groups that are easy to coordinate do more damage/control over the national discussion then a wide and large group of people.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;38596309]How about you read about how we target funerals and weddings, and the reason that drones "minimize collateral damage" and "reduce the risk of civilians getting caught in the middle of the shitstorm" is because the Military redefines the definitions of 'collateral damage' and 'civilians' to cover up any innocent deaths and keep the statistic as low as possible despite the fact that it's basically a made up statistic made to make morons like you feel better about 'living in the best country in the WORLD' WOOO!![/QUOTE] Well there is no statistic. All offensive uses of drones are highly classified. In fact, the only statistic of killed civilians comes from journalist reports. Recently, Stanford and NYU law published a study detailing the methods used to estimate civilian to militant casualties. The point is, there's nothing to redefine because there's nothing to hide. What has changed is the definition of a terrorist or militant: [quote]But by many accounts, there has been a significant shift in the nature of the targets. In the early years, most strikes were aimed at ranking leaders of Al Qaeda thought to be plotting to attack the United States. That is the purpose Mr. Obama has emphasized, saying in a CNN interview in September that drones were used to prevent “an operational plot against the United States” and counter “terrorist networks that target the United States.” [/quote] again citing the New York Times article I mentioned earlier. It's also important to note that we're arguing two different things. You are arguing operational issues such as redefinition of targets and terms of engagement. What he was arguing is that the technology offers a significantly reduced risk of civilian casualties caused by the strike. Drones are the most effective tool to reduce civilian casualties. The difference is what we define as a legitimate target; that's what the article in the OP is talking about.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;38596527]Gonna need some sources on that. Seems like a huge conspiracy. Also if you even bothered to read my other posts you'd know that I don't approve of US warmongering at all. Drones or not. All I was saying is that drones are far more precise and cause less innocent deaths, I never actually supported their use. Also I'm not even american.[/QUOTE] Drones target rescuers and funerals: [url]http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/[/url] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html?_r=0[/url] The military redefines the term "Enemy Combatant" to include any civilians in the area, over a certain age, as automatically an enemy combatant (with absolutely no proof): [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1[/url] [url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/29/1095594/-WOW-to-avoid-counting-civilian-deaths-Obama-WH-reclassified-Militants-to-include-civilians[/url] It's known that since the Iraq war, that there are more foreign human rights organizations that pop up, their sole purpose is to find out how many ACTUAL civilian casualties there are in their homeland, since the US military is well known for lying about civilian death statistics to avoid bad press.

I like how they say "The Obama Administration", rather than "The department of the Air Force," or "The department of the Army," or "The Central Intelligence Agency." The military are the ones that use the drones the most, and we have ROE. We need 100% positive identification to fire anything at anyone anymore over here in a warzone. Thing is, the CIA is using these things outside of the military departments, and thus does not follow military rules of engagement. I am all for reigning in the CIA, they give drone warfare a bad name.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;38595383]I don't really see how the gesture of "we don't even care enough to even risk a life in order to end yours" is more humane. If anything that probably qualifies as less humane since less forethought needs to be given beforehand by the people who order the drone strike since they don't feel like much is at risk.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I don't think generally how humane a weapon or method is would be judged from its effects on the user. Surely the effects upon its victims are a more important factor in this? I mean, otherwise you could argue that land mines are a humane way of defending an area, since you don't need to have actual people risking their lives defending it. And that would be a silly thing to argue.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;38596705]Drones target rescuers and funerals: [url]http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/[/url] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html?_r=0[/url] The military redefines the term "Enemy Combatant" to include any civilians in the area, over a certain age, as automatically an enemy combatant (with absolutely no proof): [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1[/url] [url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/29/1095594/-WOW-to-avoid-counting-civilian-deaths-Obama-WH-reclassified-Militants-to-include-civilians[/url] It's known that since the Iraq war, that there are more foreign human rights organizations that pop up, their sole purpose is to find out how many ACTUAL civilian casualties there are in their homeland, since the US military is well known for lying about civilian death statistics to avoid bad press.[/QUOTE] We consider any civilian over a certain age to be "militarily aged" not that they are automatically a combatant. We need 100% positive identification on a hostile act or intent in order to actually shoot anymore, so it is a moot point. I can't shoot back unless fired upon, or about to be fired upon, same rules for everything else in the combat zone.

if u dont like the drones then just shoot them down

i think the problem is that there is no set policy on drones, so any department that asks really nicely to the president to get them, can get them to use without much oversight. The military needs to setup a comprehensive playbook on who has the keys to them, but then again look at how stubborn they are at getting warrants to data mine people's emails, search histories, and their online profiles, even though there are judges that are on call 24-7 to get warrants, they still don't want to relinquish the power they currently have from post-911 legislation

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38596738]I like how they say "The Obama Administration", rather than "The department of the Air Force," or "The department of the Army," or "The Central Intelligence Agency." The military are the ones that use the drones the most, and we have ROE. We need 100% positive identification to fire anything at anyone anymore over here in a warzone. Thing is, the CIA is using these things outside of the military departments, and thus does not follow military rules of engagement. I am all for reigning in the CIA, they give drone warfare a bad name.[/QUOTE] They say the Obama Administration because he is in charge of all of those things you listed. The CIA isn't acting as a rouge operative here; the CIA is under the direct ruling of the president. The CIA doesn't need to be given clearance from the President on every mission, but they operate under the principals established by the [url=http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-31/politics/libya.presidential.finding_1_covert-activity-presidential-findings-libya?_s=PM:POLITICS]presidential finding.[/url] In short, the president issues a directive, and the CIA is allowed to operate autonomously under said directive. This means, if the President says, "drone strikes may be used on anyone thought to be plotting against the United States", then the CIA is able to launch a strike at virtually anyone they consider a threat. Virtually all the strikes in Pakistan and other countries are conducted by the CIA because they are allowed to perform operations outside of declarations of war. The Air Force isn't allowed to fly drones into Pakistan, the CIA is. That's again, why the rulebook is being made. It brings direct Congressional oversight into CIA drone operations and enhances the definitions of legal use.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38596802]We consider any civilian over a certain age to be "militarily aged" not that they are automatically a combatant.[/QUOTE] No, that's not true. That may be how it used to be, but it was changed. Anyone 'militarily aged' in the area around[I] a known combatant [/I]is allowed to be assumed as a combatant as well. Talking about drone strikes, not ground forces.

fuck I cant watch drone strike videos without getting chills, knowing that literally [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html?_r=1"]98%[/URL] of drone strike deaths are civilian deaths.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;38596705]Drones target rescuers and funerals: [url]http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/[/url] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/us-drone-strikes-are-said-to-target-rescuers.html?_r=0[/url] The military redefines the term "Enemy Combatant" to include any civilians in the area, over a certain age, as automatically an enemy combatant (with absolutely no proof): [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1[/url] [url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/29/1095594/-WOW-to-avoid-counting-civilian-deaths-Obama-WH-reclassified-Militants-to-include-civilians[/url] It's known that since the Iraq war, that there are more foreign human rights organizations that pop up, their sole purpose is to find out how many ACTUAL civilian casualties there are in their homeland, since the US military is well known for lying about civilian death statistics to avoid bad press.[/QUOTE] Find me a source showing the institutionalized cover-up of casualties. There's been cases of individuals acting out of line. The redefinition of enemy combatant has nothing to do with hiding the casualty count, because as I've already said, the information is classified.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;38596860]No, that's not true. That may be how it used to be, but it was changed. Anyone 'militarily aged' in the area around[I] a known combatant [/I]is allowed to be assumed as a combatant as well. Talking about drone strikes, not ground forces.[/QUOTE] I like how you are trying to lecture me on how we operate over here in Afghanistan, when I am in Afghanistan, I know all the theater policies and ROE, as well as the operating procedures, while simultaneously working with both helicopters and drones. That is not how we operate, end of story. They literally just updated the JDSF ROE to make it even more restrictive than it already is. Don't tell me how I am doing my job.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;38596869]fuck I cant watch drone strike videos without getting chills, knowing that literally [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html?_r=1"]98%[/URL] of drone strike deaths are civilian deaths.[/QUOTE] That's an opinion piece, and I think he's citing the wrong information. Only 2% of kills have been high-level targets. [quote][url=http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf]The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%.[/url][/quote] The total percentage of militant death to civilian deaths is much higher than 2%. [url=http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/COLUMBIACountingDronesFinalNotEmbargo.pdf]Source[/url]

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;38596869]fuck I cant watch drone strike videos without getting chills, knowing that literally [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html?_r=1"]98%[/URL] of drone strike deaths are civilian deaths.[/QUOTE] I love that statistic. Of course Habib's mother and father are going to claim that their son did no wrong and was a good person and yadda yadda yadda, even though he just got blown up shooting at a convoy or planting a bomb. You know nothing about how it really is over here other than what the news feeds you.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38596917]I like how you are trying to lecture me on how we operate over here in Afghanistan, when I am in Afghanistan, I know all the theater policies and ROE, as well as the operating procedures, while simultaneously working with both helicopters and drones. That is not how we operate, end of story. They literally just updated the JDSF ROE to make it even more restrictive than it already is. Don't tell me how I am doing my job.[/QUOTE]Well I'm sorry you're so willfully ignorant, but I know people in the military other than you and you don't seem to understand these types of discussions and realizations are happening inside the military as well as outside of it. This is just what is really happening, it's nothing personal against you, you don't have to be so defensive.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38596937]I love that statistic. Of course Habib's mother and father are going to claim that their son did no wrong and was a good person and yadda yadda yadda, even though he just got blown up shooting at a convoy or planting a bomb. You know nothing about how it really is over here other than what the news feeds you.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry I didn't realize your personal view of drone strikes in Afghanistan is automatically far more accurate then any news group ever, even if incidents are caught on video or reported by multiple witnesses. [editline]25th November 2012[/editline] Fuck off.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;38597011]I'm sorry I didn't realize your personal view of drone strikes in Afghanistan is automatically far more accurate then any news group ever, even if incidents are caught on video or reported by multiple witnesses. [editline]25th November 2012[/editline] Fuck off.[/QUOTE] *clears throat* [quote][QUOTE=soccerskyman;38596869]fuck I cant watch drone strike videos without getting chills, knowing that literally [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/opinion/17exum.html?_r=1"]98%[/URL] of drone strike deaths are civilian deaths.[/QUOTE] That's an opinion piece, and I think he's citing the wrong information. Only 2% of kills have been high-level targets. [quote][url=http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf]The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%.[/url][/quote] The total percentage of militant death to civilian deaths is much higher than 2%. [url=http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rights-institute/COLUMBIACountingDronesFinalNotEmbargo.pdf]Source[/url][/quote]

Drone strikes rulebook is good. It sets a standard that we have to abide by. Kind of like a new law designed to minimize casualties. Sure, bad targets are declared and innocents are killed. But don't forget the high ranking leaders and groups of Taliban that were killed legitimately.

[QUOTE=Ybbats;38596983]Well I'm sorry you're so willfully ignorant, but I know people in the military other than you and you don't seem to understand these types of discussions and realizations are happening inside the military as well as outside of it. This is just what is really happening, it's nothing personal against you, you don't have to be so defensive.[/QUOTE] And you don't understand that I know other people in the military too (funny that), and make a ton of connections and friends with people in high places. We don't automatically assume that they are combatants, we can't afford to. We keep a healthy suspicion of anyone and everyone going just to prepare for anything to happen, as in an ambush or a suicide attack, for instance. Also, if it was nothing personal, then why rely on personal insults? I like how you basically just called me what amounts to "Sheeple."

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;38597032]*clears throat*[/QUOTE] Ok, the previous statistic is wrong, I'll give you that. Either way, even in the source you just listed, it says its possible that 23% of deaths are civilian deaths. That's still WAY too high.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;38597158]Ok, the previous statistic is wrong, I'll give you that. Either way, even in the source you just listed, it says its possible that 23% of deaths are civilian deaths. That's still WAY too high.[/QUOTE] Of course. These are precise weapons and we need to make sure they are used correctly. But success rate of 2% versus one of 77% carries a huge argumentative difference. A 2% success rate would pretty much cancel the program immediately. Already with the latter odds, you can apply methods for correction.

I'm okay with this. Its needed and its the right thing to do.

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;38597178]Of course. These are precise weapons and we need to make sure they are used correctly. But success rate of 2% versus one of 77% carries a huge argumentative difference. A 2% success rate would pretty much cancel the program immediately. Already with the latter odds, you can apply methods for correction.[/QUOTE] I was misinformed, I apologize. I do agree that you can apply methods for correction, but the fact that they aren't already there bothers me significantly.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;38597219]I was misinformed, I apologize. I do agree that you can apply methods for correction, but the fact that they aren't already there bothers me significantly.[/QUOTE] Nah that's cool. I think the reason this hasn't been addressed is the nature of the topic. These strikes are clandestine operations that few people know about, and it's a new area of issue. There's no legal framework established, and that's why there's never been a serious reevaluation of priorities. Hopefully, that will change.

[QUOTE=Reserved Parkin;38597063]Drone strikes rulebook is good. It sets a standard that we have to abide by. Kind of like a new law designed to minimize casualties. Sure, bad targets are declared and innocents are killed. But don't forget the high ranking leaders and groups of Taliban that were killed legitimately.[/QUOTE] I don't think killing high ranking leaders really worth the cost. The current rulebook NEEDS clarification.

[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;38593518]why does it matter which methods are used in an assassination? If they didn't use an unmanned drone they'd just find another way[/QUOTE] ... That point is that, you can't just go and kill random people because they are suspected of doing something that you do not like.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;38597267]I don't think killing high ranking leaders really worth the cost. The current rulebook NEEDS clarification.[/QUOTE] I think it is. I know it sounds kind of cynical, but the supposed innocent casualty rate is fairly low, when compared to the total rate of successful legitimate targets. I agree, that's why they are making this new book to reform the current book. Good.