Quote:The UN’s expert on extrajudicial killings has described a tactic used by the CIA and first exposed by a Bureau investigation as ‘a war crime’.

Earlier this year the Bureau and the Sunday Times revealed the CIA was deliberately targeting rescuers and funeral-goers in its Pakistan drone strikes. Those controversial tactics have reportedly been revived.

Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur, told a meeting in Geneva on June 21: ’Reference should be made to a study earlier this year by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism… If civilian ‘rescuers’ are indeed being intentionally targeted, there is no doubt about the law: those strikes are a war crime.’

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/201...war-crime/

Quote:The US policy of using aerial drones to carry out targeted killings presents a major challenge to the system of international law that has endured since the second world war, a United Nations investigator has said.

Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama's attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards.

In his strongest critique so far of drone strikes, Heyns suggested some may even constitute "war crimes". His comments come amid rising international unease over the surge in killings by remotely piloted unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun...nal-law-un

**** the UN.

He's saying just the strikes intentionally targeting rescuers may be a war crime, not all. I'm in favor of drone strikes against al Qaeda, but if in fact we are targeting medics we need to stop.

(06-22-2012 09:59 AM)Max Power Wrote:  He's saying just the strikes intentionally targeting rescuers may be a war crime, not all. I'm in favor of drone strikes against al Qaeda, but if in fact we are targeting medics we need to stop.

It's a frigging drone. It doesn't know whether what it's hitting is an al Qaeda member or a medic. Neither, in many cases, does the person who targeted it. He has a pretty good idea, but can't be absolutely certain.

This is the problem with all this gee-whiz handy gadgetry. I can make a rocket go in this window or that window. What I can't control is who is sitting behind which window. In war, you take the best information you have, aim and fire. That is all you can do.

The issue is intentionally targeting medics. Mistakes happen, but we shouldn't intentionally target civilians, especially rescuers.

(06-22-2012 10:16 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The issue is intentionally targeting medics. Mistakes happen, but we shouldn't intentionally target civilians, especially rescuers.

You do know there aren't ANY muslim civilians, they are all terrists and should all be killed

Signed Rebel, SMN and SOAF

Does Obama sign off on drone targets or does the CIA fire at will?

Rob, a dedicated Muslim faithfully following the quran as it's being taught today is a potential terrorist.

(06-22-2012 10:16 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The issue is intentionally targeting medics. Mistakes happen, but we shouldn't intentionally target civilians, especially rescuers.

But, Obaffoon has a kill list. It's just.... you may not be on the kill list till Obaffoon kills you.

(06-22-2012 10:16 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The issue is intentionally targeting medics. Mistakes happen, but we shouldn't intentionally target civilians, especially rescuers.

But that requires a showing of intent. And i find the articles saying that we have "intentionally killed" all these people to be painfully long on numbers of people killed and woefully short on intent.

(06-22-2012 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2012 09:59 AM)Max Power Wrote:  He's saying just the strikes intentionally targeting rescuers may be a war crime, not all. I'm in favor of drone strikes against al Qaeda, but if in fact we are targeting medics we need to stop.

It's a frigging drone. It doesn't know whether what it's hitting is an al Qaeda member or a medic. Neither, in many cases, does the person who targeted it. He has a pretty good idea, but can't be absolutely certain.

This is the problem with all this gee-whiz handy gadgetry. I can make a rocket go in this window or that window. What I can't control is who is sitting behind which window. In war, you take the best information you have, aim and fire. That is all you can do.

Aren't these things equipped with high-tech cameras and guidance systems that the remote operators have constant access to?

I would imagine they likely know exactly what they are shooting at. I'm not discounting collateral damage of course.

(06-22-2012 10:26 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  Does Obama sign off on drone targets or does the CIA fire at will?

Quote:The nominations go to the White House, where by his own insistence and guided by Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama must approve any name. He signs off on every strike in Yemen and Somalia and also on the more complex and risky strikes in Pakistan — about a third of the total.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/...wanted=all

(06-22-2012 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(06-22-2012 10:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-22-2012 09:59 AM)Max Power Wrote:  He's saying just the strikes intentionally targeting rescuers may be a war crime, not all. I'm in favor of drone strikes against al Qaeda, but if in fact we are targeting medics we need to stop.

It's a frigging drone. It doesn't know whether what it's hitting is an al Qaeda member or a medic. Neither, in many cases, does the person who targeted it. He has a pretty good idea, but can't be absolutely certain.

This is the problem with all this gee-whiz handy gadgetry. I can make a rocket go in this window or that window. What I can't control is who is sitting behind which window. In war, you take the best information you have, aim and fire. That is all you can do.

Aren't these things equipped with high-tech cameras and guidance systems that the remote operators have constant access to?

I would imagine they likely know exactly what they are shooting at. I'm not discounting collateral damage of course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...story.html

Evil America Killing rag-heads indiscriminately. Flashback to 911

When you play with the Bull, you get the horn.

(06-22-2012 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Aren't these things equipped with high-tech cameras and guidance systems that the remote operators have constant access to?
I would imagine they likely know exactly what they are shooting at. I'm not discounting collateral damage of course.

There is a huge difference between knowing what you see in a high-tech camera and knowing exactly what you are shooting at. If they're inside a building, it's obviously impossible. And if you're a potential target, you are going to make sure that you are constantly surrounded by high potential for collateral damage. And there's always Murphy's law.

The point of all this is to say that saying we have killed X number of civilians, whatever X is, does not establish in any way an intent to kill those civilians. I don't agree with the administration's approach of basically labeling everyone who gets killed as a combatant because if they weren't a combatant they wouldn't be in position to get killed. But I also doubt very seriously that a lot of those "innocent civilians" are actually innocent in any way, shape, or form.

I have somewhat mixed emotions about this. My libertarian leanings are in conflict with my war-fighting experience. I think the way I would prefer to resolve it is to make sure we never fight a war we don't intend to win, and to recognize that the intent to win the war as quickly as possible, and with MINIMUM friendly casualties, may cause certain decisions to be made differently than they might otherwise. Go in to win, adopt rules of engagement intended to facilitate winning from day one, make sure those rules are publicized as widely as possible, and then follow them and back people up when they do follow them.

What we really can't do is the kind of sleazy, slimy Rumsfeld approach where we sorta kinda pretend that we can have a war without anyone getting hurt. Norman Schwartzkopf said it best, "Armies can do two things--kill people and break things." Make it very clear that when we go in somewhere militarily, we are going to kill people and break things, and we aren't going to apologize for doing so. And make absolutely certain that we NEVER EVER go in anywhere that intervention on precisely that basis is not totally justified. Speak softly and carry a damned big stick.

(06-22-2012 10:16 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The issue is intentionally targeting medics. Mistakes happen, but we shouldn't intentionally target civilians, especially rescuers.

You mean we shouldn't use a tactic used by Hamas and denounced by the U.S. Gov't as terrorism?

Quote:Speaking publicly for the first time on the controversial CIA drone strikes, Obama claimed last week they are used strictly to target terrorists, rejecting what he called ‘this perception we’re just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly’.

‘Drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties’, he told a questioner at an on-line forum. ‘This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists trying to go in and harm Americans’.

But research by the Bureau has found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children. A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/201...-funerals/

I would be willing to bet that a forward observer has eyes on the target of some nature, whether on the ground or in the air, to verify that the target is in the house, vehicle, etc. before the missile is fired or the bomb dropped.

My own rules of engagement for drones would be, "If we are at war and we have a legitimate shot at what legitimate intelligence leads us to believe is a high-value target, we are going to take it. If it turns out that it wasn't the target that the intel led us to believe, or if there are civilian casualties and collateral damage, then those are things that we are making reasonable efforts to avoid, but they cannot be prevented absolutely in a war-fighting context." Rub of the green. Sh!* happens.

Obviously, there are situations where that particular rule is inappropriate. Those situations need to be resolved by other than military means.

(06-22-2012 10:16 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The issue is intentionally targeting medics. Mistakes happen, but we shouldn't intentionally target civilians, especially rescuers.

There is no evidence that we have....F the UN.

(06-22-2012 11:34 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(06-22-2012 10:16 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The issue is intentionally targeting medics. Mistakes happen, but we shouldn't intentionally target civilians, especially rescuers.

You mean we shouldn't use a tactic used by Hamas and denounced by the U.S. Gov't as terrorism?

Quote:Speaking publicly for the first time on the controversial CIA drone strikes, Obama claimed last week they are used strictly to target terrorists, rejecting what he called ‘this perception we’re just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly’.

‘Drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties’, he told a questioner at an on-line forum. ‘This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists trying to go in and harm Americans’.

But research by the Bureau has found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children. A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/201...-funerals/

Your anti-american bias is showing once again, as there is not even an assertion from the UN that the strikes are not targeting people who are legitimate targets. Rarely are Hamas attacks targeted toward any specific, legitimate, target (unless you share the Hamas opinion that little girls are legitimate targets because one day they will give birth to children that will later become soldiers).

(06-22-2012 11:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My own rules of engagement for drones would be, "If we are at war and we have a legitimate shot at what legitimate intelligence leads us to believe is a high-value target, we are going to take it. If it turns out that it wasn't the target that the intel led us to believe, or if there are civilian casualties and collateral damage, then those are things that we are making reasonable efforts to avoid, but they cannot be prevented absolutely in a war-fighting context." Rub of the green. Sh!* happens.

Obviously, there are situations where that particular rule is inappropriate. Those situations need to be resolved by other than military means.

Yeah but your view of "legitimate intelligence lead" is anyone that has brown skin and lives in the middle east.

(06-22-2012 11:45 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I would be willing to bet that a forward observer has eyes on the target of some nature, whether on the ground or in the air, to verify that the target is in the house, vehicle, etc. before the missile is fired or the bomb dropped.

Usually yes, but perhaps not always, particularly on some targets of opportunity. And the FO's may not always be people we control or who are the most reliable.

There was a deal for a while, may still be going on, where we gave supposedly reliable locals little medallion-sized devices to toss into the yard of a house containing terrorists. They contained some kind of a transponder and the missiles would lock onto the signal. I'm sure a few feuds got resolved by tossing a medallion into the other side's yard.