Minimum of 140 children killed, and minimum 920 civilians killed overall.

[MadHound]

Those are the number of innocents that the Obama killed under its drone program from January 2011 through April 2012, a little over one year. That number is, in all reality, probably much larger than that, but those are the numbers that can be confirmed in a new joint study conducted by the law schools of Stanford and New York universities.

This seriously contradicts claims by Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein in the opening remarks of CIA Director nominee John Brennan's confirmation hearing.

In fact, Feinstein went all in for the Obama administration, claiming that civilian deaths(and remember here, according to the Obama administration, all military age males in the strike zone are counted as combatants, which means most of these deaths are of women and children) are only in the single digits, max, for any given month.

Yet this new NYU/SU study finds that instead of single digits, we're looking at a median of 61 civilian deaths minimum. Further, the study details the mental, physical, social and economic toll of the US drone program in great detail. Upon an even quick perusal of this study it quickly becomes obvious that the Obama administration is conducting an ongoing, international crime against humanity, all in our name, all with our taxpayer dollars.

And yes, this administration's drone policy is illegal, not to mention immoral. The NYU/SU states that, "U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions,
Christof Heyns, have questioned whether “killings carried out in 2012 can be justified as
in response to [events] in 2001,” noting that “some states seem to want to invent new
laws to justify new practices.” This has prompted the UN Human Rights Council to open an investigation in the US drone program.

The NYU/SU study(remember, this was conducted by their law schools), finds that the US is, at the very least, on very shaky ground in regards to its drone program, not only in the area of international law, but also domestic law, AUMF included.

As far as those folks who are of the opinion that anybody close to those who are being targeted goes, I'm sorry, but we're talking about women and children here, who are most likely dependent upon those who are being targeted. Women and children.

Not only are we killing our enemies, however that is defined, but our allies as well. Is this any way to make friends and persuade people? All we are doing with these drone strikes is making more and more people angry at the US, a mistake that we will pay for, sooner or later, with an attack the size and scope of 911, or worse.

Now, not only are we killing our "enemies" but our own citizens as well, and once again, children are taking the brunt of the damage. One of the three US citizens killed by drone attacks was a sixteen year old boy, who was not a threat to the US, just a freshman at high school. In fact, as more and more details emerge, it is becoming that the other two US citizens that were targeted weren't an immediate and credible threat either.

Of course, the answer to whether or not such attacks on US citizens is Constitutional is obvious, they aren't. They are simply another power grab by this administration, much in the same tradition of the Bush regime, which shoved the unconstitutional practice of both pre-emptive war and extraordinary rendition, ie torture, down our collective throats. Furthermore, the legal memo detailing White House policy conveniently doesn't limit this power to assassinate US citizens to only when they are abroad, but leaves the door open for domestic assassination drones as well.

Thus, the question becomes whether or not we will stand for this illegal, immoral practice. If you can't support this madness(and who in their right mind or morality can), then I suggest that you contact your representatives in Congress and the White House. Further, I suggest you support the ACLU and other groups in their efforts to turn back this illegal, immoral policy. After all, the next drone assassination could be yours, especially if you participate in anti-war or Occupy actions, or other such movements. The combined force of the Patriot Act and the NDAA means that a terrorist is now essentially any person or group that this administration, or any administration deems to be a terrorist.

Oh, and for those who trust the Obama administration implicitly, ask yourself this hypothetical, even if the Obama administration is all wise and would never abuse this kind of power, do you really want this power to reside in Executive Branch the next time a 'Pug takes power.

The simple fact of the matter is that our drone policy is a mushrooming morass, one that is not just illegal, immoral and unconstitutional, but also one that is creating more and more enemies where we need all the friends we can get. It is time to end this drone policy before it is too late and while we still can. Otherwise the consequences, both at home and abroad, are too dire to even predict.

[dreamnightwind]

1. Sadly, I agree

Excellent OP, thanks Madhound.

Contacting our reps is a good idea, they need to hear from us. Establishing an anti-drone street presence would also be good, time to make signs and stand on some busy corner.

[cliffordu]

2. I pretty much agree with everything you've written.

Except for one thing:

We are an empire at this point, and the ONE thing that empire has to do above all else is protect the empire.

By any means necessary.

Obama and the rest are just doing what empire has always done.

When our time of empire is gone, another empire will pick our bones clean.

The Chinese, methinks.

[randome]

9. We are protecting nothing in Yemen, Mali, Somalia, etc.

I would say we are not an empire but America does pretty much own the world.

[MadHound]

11. Of course we're flying the drones in order to protect our empire,

In the case of our African drone program, it is to protect the petrodollar and the obscene profits that are made with it.

Oh, and let's not forget protecting resources, a lot is at stake.

But you already know that.

[randome]

12. You do realize there are civil wars in those places, right?

Is France protecting their empire?

[MadHound]

15. So just because those countries are engaged in a civil war,

That gives us the right to assassinate their citizens, kill their women and children. Thank God France and England didn't take that attitude during our civil war.

I noticed that you haven't read the article, or at least you haven't deigned to comment on it.

[randome]

22. My point is that we are not serving the ends of 'empire' by taking sides in a civil war.

What is your solution in those countries? Stand by and watch people slaughter each other? Or, better yet, let another Islamic dictatorship take hold?

America is not always the noble hero on the world stage. But we sometimes do good things.

[MadHound]

67. You obviously aren't paying attention, or keeping yourself fully informed

Of course our interventions are serving the empire. Look what is happening in Africa. Let's not forget the trillion dollar pool of natural resources in Afghanistan(which we are not leaving until at least 2024, according to the SOF signed by Obama and Kharzi last year).

We like to claim that we are acting out of the goodness of our hearts, but the fact is we send in the military whenever and wherever our interests are threatened. The list is a long one, and it extends around the globe. This is why citizens of other countries now fear us, rather than look towards us for aid and comfort.

Our meddling in other countries, especially when that meddling is unwanted, all that we are doing is creating more and more enemies, not to mention killing the innocent and ravaging the countryside. Not a pretty scene, but then again reality is not always pretty.

[Fire Walk With Me]

3. And just imagine Mitt Romney or John McCain getting their hands on all of it!

Time to get rid of it now!

[kenny blankenship]

4. Yeah, but he looks tough!

That's our President!

[Demo_Chris]

5. If a drone target is NOT legitimate it has ways of shutting the whole thing down

And that's just the first thing this thread got wrong!

I know you have all these numbers and studies, all no doubt done by so-called "universities" and other anti-American institutions, but those are just facts, and facts are often just tools of the godless forces of anti-americanism to confuse things. Allow me to demonstrate.

Look quickly at the image below and count the terrorists:



How many terrorists did you see? The correct answer is four. If you answered anything other than this -- if, for example, you said "I see some kids" -- congratulations, you just let the terrorists win. These young jihadists might not YET be engaged in terrorist acts, but at some point down the road, given the proper motivation, they probably could be. Hell, they are gathered, no doubt in a terrorist cell, and if that doesn't warrant a drone strike I don't know what does.

Let's try again. Look quickly at the picture below and count the terrorists:



If you answered seven you are wrong again. It was a trick question! I did not ask how many legitimate targets there were, I just asked you to count the terrorists. In this case there is only the one in the foreground with the shifty eyes holding the anti-American sign.

Okay, one final test. And I will warn you ahead of time, this one is another trick question! Again, look quickly at the image and count the terrorists:



Did you count six? Gotcha again! You no doubt saw what appeared to be terrorists burrying an IED. It's an easy mistake -- and one that even trained professionals have made. Despite all the evidence against them, we can be fairly confident that these children are not terrorists. They are, after all, white. However, this is not to say that a Hellfire missile or two isn't called for anyway. You never really know who's a terrorist and who isn't until after the fact, at which point you can be sure they were terrorists.

And that's the point that was absent from the original post. We haven't killed any kids or women, we haven't killed any innocent victims, we haven't even killed people. We have killed American hating terrorist scum who hate us for our freedom and our Jesus! Amen.


(This was, of course, sarcasm. The links below are to further information)

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20884/is-america-like-adam-lanza-u-s-drone-strikes-have-killed-176-children-in-pakistan-alone

http://truthalliance.net/Archive/News/tabid/67/ID/10281/List-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-Pakistan-and-Yemen.aspx

[ProSense]

6. When you have to

"Minimum of 140 children killed, and minimum 920 civilians killed overall. Those are the number of innocents that the Obama killed under its drone program from January 2011 through April 2012, a little over one year. That number is, in all reality, probably much larger than that, but those are the numbers that can be confirmed in a new joint study conducted by the law schools of Stanford and New York universities."

...distort the facts to make a point, it's telling.

In fact, the report states that between August 2010 and April 2012, civilian casualties were 117 to 284, including 17 children.

It also states that from January 2009 to December 2011, which ecompasses some of the above data, 297 to 559, including about 64 children.

From the report:

The most well-known school strike was an October 6, 2006 strike on a religious school in Bajaur that killed over 80 people, including 69 children.

The majority of the strikes were in Pakistan.

First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.”[2] It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.[3] TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.

http://livingunderdrones.org/

[MadHound]

8. Speaking of distorting facts, you're doing it right.

I understand, this report is truly damning, but your attempts to distort the numbers are laughable at best. For the report contains multiple methods of verifying the numbers(such as Appendix B)

And the worst thing about your trying to twist the numbers is that you're doing it so poorly that you're actually making my point for me.

But hey, keep on with what you're doing. All you are showing is that you are willing to condone the deaths of innocents, of children, just so long as it is done by your man Obama.

How do you live with yourself? How do you function in life with a moral compass that is so seriously impaired that you're willing to give Obama a pass on the deaths of hundreds of innocents?

[green for victory]

17. +920

[99Forever]

39. ^^^^^THIS!^^^^^^

Apparently there are some on this board who have absolutely no moral compass when it comes to being partisans and are blinded by their "rock star demi-god" worship.

[ProSense]

61. "^^^^^THIS!^^^^^^"

Happens to be inaccurate.

"Apparently there are some on this board who have absolutely no moral compass when it comes to being partisans and are blinded by their "rock star demi-god" worship."

Evidently, "some on this board" will believe anything as they accuse others of being "blinded by their 'rock star demi-god' worship."

Is that "rock start demi-god" supposed to be the Kenyan President?

If so, I don't worship the President, I just dislike bullshit.

[99Forever]

103. We know them by what they do.

Have a nice day.

[ProSense]

54. FYI:

"For the report contains multiple methods of verifying the numbers(such as Appendix B)"

...The numbers I cited came verbatim from Appendix B, pages 164 - 165 (pages 178 - 179 of the PDF).

Now, since you continue to distort (and deflect by claiming that I'm distorting they numbers), please cite the exact location of your numbers.

Thanks in advance.

[MadHound]

73. Cherry picking, you're doing it right, n/t

Read the report, fully, look at the number in Appendix B and C. Stop trying to cherry pick.

Still defending the death of children, sad.

[ProSense]

74. You can't cite the numbers in your OP because they're bullshit. n/t

[MadHound]

78. WHOOMP, there it is!

The substanceless, insulting post, the last refuge for those who know they've been exposed for what they are.

My link to the study is up there for everybody to see, and decide, for themselves.

[ProSense]

87. Where? Did you post the location of the numbers you cited?

"My link to the study is up there for everybody to see, and decide, for themselves."

My citation to the data in the study is "there for everybody to see."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2340656

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2341530

Can you point to the exact location of your numbers?



^^^^some people don't like that emoticon, but it seems appropriate for me to use at this embarrassing time for you.

[OldDem2012]

95. Don't you know that by requesting actual facts, you've obviously lost your "moral compass"??....

[MadHound]

131. Except I provide the link to the actual facts in my OP,

ProSense simply wants to cherry pick in order to obscure the real issues.

Go, look at the link, download the study, see for yourself.

[OldDem2012]

132. And you try to be as insulting as possible to posters who don't agree with you.....

....Just my opinion, but that kind of nonsense gets very old and obscures whatever point you're trying to make.

[MadHound]

137. Hard to be polite to a person who has repeated insulted me,

And does so in virtually every thread I post. I'm a liberal, not a saint.

[OldDem2012]

138. My advice to you is to re-read a few dozen of your recent posts....

....and try to tone down the personally-insulting rhetoric.

[MadHound]

139. Mmm-hmmm,

That is your advice. Perhaps you should follow it. Have a nice day.

[OldDem2012]

140. LOL. None of what I've said to you could possibly be misconstrued as being insulting....

...but thanks for posting such a thoughtful and well-mannered response. I'll take it under advisement.

[morningfog]

113. For too many, they start with the wrong question.

They ask "How can I argue that Obama is doing the right thing?" rather than "Is this the right thing to do."

When they take that approach, they have lost their moral compass, their credibility and the argument.

[stevenleser]

25. Good effort, but the person to whom you are responding isnt interested in the truth

and they dont really care about the people who die. That is clearly not the point. This is just the latest issue about which to criticize the administration.

The truly shocking thing would be if the OP expressed agreement with the administration on anything. ANYTHING.

[polly7]

30. How do you know who cares about who dies??

That's a shitty thing to say.

I think most of us disgusted by these chicken*drones are VERY disturbed by the innocents they've killed, especially the children.

!! !!

[randome]

33. But did we start 173 threads on the subject of, say, an accidental shooting of civilians with a gun?

There are some threads when that happens, of course, but nowhere near the vociferous determination when it occurs using a sinister drone.

What is it about drones that brings out more outrage than other types of killing?

[polly7]

35. They make killing too easy.

Either declare fucking war on these people and give them legal right to fight back and protect themselves, or stop killing them with these chicken* toys from above. Stop pretending setting up these drone bases all over the ME and Africa have anything to do with protecting the safety of Americans and admit it's all about protecting resource interests and establishing more.

People have been disgusted with these drones for years ....... maybe you just ignored it.

[randome]

52. We are not at war with Pakistan.

They cannot rid themselves of the terrorists in their mountains. So the situation is much more complex than it has been in times past.

We do not WANT to declare war on Pakistan. We DO want to declare war on the terrorists hiding in their mountains. The old concept of declaring war on an entire country is not as clean a concept as it used to be.

[polly7]

59. lmao. nt.

[druidity33]

145. part of it for me...

is the fact that we TARGET rescue workers (people who rush to the aid of victims of a drone attack are bombed as well), funerals and weddings. Our policies regarding drone targets need to be reworked and our accuracy needs to improve. We shouldn't be allowed to fire into a group of people if we don't know exactly who they are and what they're doing. We do that REPEATEDLY.

[randome]

148. I hear you. I sure as hell don't want anyone innocent to die. For any reason.

But from the military's standpoint, these terrorists ALWAYS make sure they are surrounded by civilians. That doesn't make it right to kill civilians but I understand the calculations that go into it.

[stevenleser]

36. I know because every issue posted about by the OP is focused the same way

that is all the OP is interesed in, ways to attack the President.

[polly7]

37. You don't 'know' sh*. nt.

[stevenleser]

38. Yep, that's what I thought. You have nothing to say in response. nt

[polly7]

46. I did respond.

Wtf are you to decide someone doesn't 'care' about killing innocents? I think you've pretty much outed yourself as being one that DOESN'T care ... it's obvious that trying so hard to make this all about hating President Obama and not the drones and the policies for using them, is about as shallow and pathetic as it gets and transparent as hell, imo.

[stevenleser]

50. Now we are getting somewhere. You think the majority of DUers and Democrats are bad people

because they disagree with you on the drones issue.

And, while its abundantly clear that the OP virtually only posts OPs when he thinks he has something bad to say about the administration, we're supposed to ignore that, and pretend the subjects in those OPs are only about pristeen beliefs devoid of things like an obsessive hatred of the administration.

Right.

[polly7]

57. No, I'm not misguided enough to believe 'anyone' who disagrees with me on

anything is a bad person. You, however seem to be trying your hardest to imply the OP is. Check out a mirror.

[stevenleser]

64. The OP has a track record that is well known, and there for anyone to check.

And you as much as said that I am a bad person for supporting the admin's drone policy, which is pretty much par for the course here on DU for people arguing your side of the issue.

Facts are facts. You can't write things and expect people not to notice.

[dionysus]

116. you nailed it steven

[OldDem2012]

133. Bingo. Some folks on DU are so blinded by their hatred of the President...

...that they will post anything to make a personal attack on him and the policies of his administration.

It isn't enough for them that the President has ended one war and is winding down the second war, neither of which should have been fought in the first place.

It's not enough that his policies have pulled us from the brink of a financial precipice despite the best efforts of the GOP Tea-Nazis in Congress and the corporations that fund them.

It will never be enough for them no matter what he does. Very sad, IMHO.

[99Forever]

41. Ahhh yes...

... "shoot the messenger." How very fucking original.

You've certainly got us all fooled!

[stevenleser]

43. LOL, simple recourse, right? Let's analyze the OPs. Are you interested?

How about we do an advanced search and look at MadHound's OPs. I'll bet you that of the OPs where Obama and the administration is mentioned, at least 95% by MadHound have something bad to say about him.

If I am wrong, I'll delete my responses here.

If I am right, you'll acknowledge that anyone posting here who posts 95% negative OPs about Obama has the subject tarnished by their dislike of the guy.

Let me know.

[99Forever]

47. Funny that.

Double down on the same tactic, eh?

Impressive.

[stevenleser]

48. That's exactly what I thought. You know I am right and that's why you dare not go that route

if we start analyzing the rest of the OPs by the OP, the data is going to suggest that the OP is obsessively anti-Obama and yes, that does color the perception of what he writes.

[99Forever]

101. Wow!

Triple down!

Isn't that special?

[stevenleser]

106. The OP admitted I am right. What say you now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2341589

[MadHound]

127. Please don't parse and paraphrase my response to fit your needs,

As I stated, I'm dealing with the issues, with policy, while you are continually trying to paint me as some sort of Obama hater. Big difference.

[Dawgs]

146. Give it up MadHound. SL, like many others, need to make themselves feel better.

They know that their "hero" is right of Nixon and it will kill them to ever have to admit it.

[stevenleser]

149. LOL -You've admitted that 95% or more of your OPs here are anti-Obama. That is bias, pure and simple

It's also ridiculous and not what I would expect to find from a poster at DU. I expect that kind of anti-Obama bias in the posting percentages of people in places like Free Republic and Hot Air and Red State maybe, but not DU.

You may think I parsed and paraphrased, but I didn't. Once you admitted that if we did a search on your OPs that 95% or more would be anti-Obama, you admitted to bias.

[MadHound]

151. No, geez, do I have to explain it to you like you are a two year old child?

Apparently so.

My posts are about issues, irregardless of who is in the White House. If, and when, it was Bush in the White House running an illegal, immoral drone program, I was critical of his policy. I am still critical of the same policy despite the fact that it is a Democrat in the White House. Just like I'm against the war, no matter who is in office.

It is called consistency, now do you get it?

[RC]

144. So what?

The question should be; "As a rule, are the facts MadHound posts, correct?" Reading down through this thread alone, I would have to say, "Why yes they are."
Why? Because their are no real refuting of what he posts. But there is a lot of attacking the messenger type replies.

It should not matter if most of his post are critical of the Obama Administration, or not. What should matter is, Are what he posts factual, truthful?
That is not your real problem with him anyway. MadHound is pointing out, correctly in my view, International war crimes, for using our military for killing non-combatants in countries we are not at war with, under the guise of "Fighting Terrorism".
As is repeatedly pointed out around here, and just as often ignored, if a Republican President were to be doing the exact same thing as Obama is doing, most of us would be up in noisy arms!
Your problem and your like minded buddies problem seems to be too much blind admiration and not enough critical thinking about why we as a country are actuality doing in the Middle East in the first place!
In other words, too much "Rah, rah, rah, USA, USA, USA!" and not enough !

[MadHound]

55. You're right, I focus on issues, not people.

I condemned Bush for drone strikes, just as I criticize Obama for the same. I criticized Bush for his unconstitutional expansion of presidential power, just as I criticize Obama for the same.

What, you think I shouldn't criticize Obama for enacting the same policies that I criticized Bush for? That would make me a hypocrite, something I try to avoid. Perhaps you should do the same.

[stevenleser]

60. So, take me up on my challenge. I think that 95% or more of your OPs where Obama or the admin are

mentioned, you are critical of them. I think that indicates a bias against them that colors everything that you say.

Are you up for it? I will only go through your OPs with your permission.

[MadHound]

65. You're probably right,

But again, that is because I focus on ISSUES, not the person who is in office. I don't change my position on such issues when the letter behind the president's name changes.

I am a vociferous opponent of our war in Afghanistan, just as I'm a vociferous opponent of our drone policy, and the tearing down of civil liberties and the shredding of our Constitution. Furthermore, I am an environmentalist, critical of the Keystone XL pipeline, and I'm opposed to any further shredding of our social safety net.

My position on those issues has been consistent across the years and administrations. For, after all, it is issues that matter. So yes, when it comes to those issues, and others that are near and dear, you will find that I am critical of this administration. But you will also find, going back into the archives, that I was just as critical of Bush on those issues.

That is what it means to be consistent, you stand on the issues, not the person.

Where do you stand, with the issues or with the man?

[stevenleser]

68. I haven't changed my positions on a single issue since Obama took office

I can point to posts by me under my own name on my old blog as far back as 2001 which indicated support for the Bush admin on Afghanistan. I was supportive of that war. I have been supportive of drones and special forces actions against terrorism all along.

I have been against the Iraq war from the beginning and against torture from the beginning.

I dont think I am in any way unique of the folks who support the Obama administration's position on drones. I think most if not all DUers who support the Obama administration on drones have supported them all along, etc.

[MadHound]

77. So our disagreement is over the issues,

You support the illegal, immoral war in Afghanistan, you support a drone policy that is breaking both international and domestic law. I guess then that you tacitly approve of the deaths of children as well.

Do you also support the shredding of our civil liberties, the destruction of our Constitution? Warrantless wiretaps? What about the environment, do you support the Keystone Pipeline?

If you answer yes to any or all of those questions, then one has to start wondering how you can call yourself a Democrat, much less a liberal.

[stevenleser]

93. I do not agree that our disagreement is over the issues. I think you have another agenda.

I think, for reasons only known to you, you have a particular negative obsession with this administration.

I think you also have a reason to try and feel morally superior to other people that not only overrides any ability to see other people's side of issues, it goes beyond the issues themselves.

Only you know why that is, and I doubt you would be honest about it.

[MadHound]

123. Well, I would say we would have to disagree about that as well,

My record on these issues is clear, concise and consistent, you can check my posts going all the way back to 2002.

As far as trying to feel morally superior to anybody, that is your perception, but not the reality.

Frankly, my perception of you is that you have some need to damn anybody who is critical of Obama's policies, attack them on a personal level. You seem to have a hard time dealing strictly with the issues. And your record, even just in this thread alone, bears that out. Almost every one of your posts to me in this thread is a personal attack, and doesn't deal with the issue of drones at all. Hmmm.

[unapatriciated]

136. Thank You

That about sums it up, for those of us who have been critical on the same policies no matter what letter is behind their name.

[Dawgs]

147. Thanks again MadHound.

You made my night.

[Comrade Grumpy]

120. That's an ad hominem attack and a really shitty insinuation.

But then, there are desperate toadies everywhere.

Care to actually address the topic of the OP?

[OldDem2012]

134. Irony....look it up. nt.

[polly7]

7. K&R nt.

[randome]

10. I don't understand why this needs to be repeated.

There would be many MORE civilian deaths -and deaths of our soldiers- if we were in a ground war or on bombing runs.

That's not the same, of course, as supporting the reasons for war in the first place.

[MadHound]

14. Actually, there probably would be less civilian deaths.

After all, these drone attacks are essentially functioning as assassination strikes. They aren't done to improve the strategic situation, they are designed to kill one, perhaps a few, individuals. Of course in the process, they kill many surrounding civilians.

However if we sent in live bodies to carry out those assassinations, the sniper would target a single individual, and would not inflict collateral damage.

Furthermore, if we had to carry out those assassinations the old fashioned way, we would engage in a lot less assassination(which, by the by, is illegal under US law).

[Recursion]

27. That's ridiculous

However if we sent in live bodies to carry out those assassinations, the sniper would target a single individual, and would not inflict collateral damage.

You watch too many movies.

Imagine even sending in a battalion of infantry. Before they can go in, you have to fire an artillery barrage into the area. A single 155mm howitzer shell will flatten a brownstone rowhouse and shatter every window within a half mile. A barrage is a dozen of those concentrated within 100 yards. Now that the buildings are flattened, the infantry can move in. They will shoot anyone who does not perform surrender instructions exactly. These instructions are being shouted in a 19-year-old from Wichita's version of Urdu, at people who are deaf from the recent barrage.

Do that four or five more times, and you've grabbed enough landscape to make an FOB that the sniper could operate out of.

Drones save lives.

[randome]

34. Plus many of these areas are surrounded by desert.

Even without a barrage as prelude, how would a sniper get anywhere near a village surrounded by miles of desert?

[MadHound]

63. Perhaps we should consult with Mossad,

They seem perfectly capable of carrying out such missions.

[randome]

70. Israeli assassinations seem to be more the car bombing type.

Not in isolated mountainous regions. Although I haven't done a study on this, that's the first thing that comes to mind -car bombings. There probably aren't a lot of opportunities to fix a car bomb in an isolated mountainous region.

[MadHound]

81. Wow, and you accuse me of watching too many movies,

Apparently your knowledge of the Mossad doesn't even extend to what makes the news around the world.

[randome]

85. I never claimed to be in possession of superior knowledge.

Since you seem comfortable refuting me, perhaps you can furnish information to back your statements up.

[MadHound]

86. There are plenty of books and articles out there available to the ordinary person,

Go to your public library and educate yourself.

[randome]

91. Or Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations

Many Mossad assassinations were the result of letter bombs, phone bombs, car bombs, apartment building shootings, etc.

None of which would apply to remote mountainous regions.

When Mossad did use helicopters or missiles, innocent bystanders were killed.

I don't think Mossad is the archetype of targeted assassinations you want.

[MadHound]

121. OMG, now you are resorting to Wikipedia,

I guess that you truly believe that everything posted on Wikipedia is true and factual

[MadHound]

49. Umm, you don't send in a battalion to carry out assassinations,

Nor do you presage such assassinations with an artillery barrage. You send in small teams, with little warning, such as they did with bin Laden. That is not a movie script, that is reality.

Furthermore, if you can't perform an assassination in such a manner, you don't follow through with the operation.

Thus, lives are saved.

Drones aren't saving lives, they are taking innocent lives by the hundreds and thousands. Worse, they are radicalizing tens of thousands, which is going to come back and bite us hard one day. Perhaps then you will see the error of your ways, when it is innocent Americans dead on the streets of this country. Of course then it will be too late.

[Octafish]

29. It needs to be repeated because so many continue to believe it's not a war crime.

Killing innocent people when avoidable, even in war time, is a crime. It's called murder.

I don't know why that doesn't bother so many people, but it should, especially citizens of the United States.

[bighart]

96. I don't know about that

since most of these drone strikes occur in areas where we don't have traditional forces as WE ARE NOT ENGAGED IN SANCTIONED MILITARY ACTIONS, ie at "war", with them.

[randome]

98. I posted this conundrum in a couple of other places on this thread.

Pakistan, for instance. We are not at war with Pakistan but we want to help them -and ourselves- rid them of the terrorists in their midst.

We don't currently have legal mechanisms in place to declare war against a mountainous region. And we don't want to be at war with the country of Pakistan.

[MadHound]

126. And again and again you've been told that Pakistan condemns these drone attacks on their soil,

That they want them to stop. But we continue to violate their sovereignty with these drone strikes, thus breaking international law.

[MadHound]

125. In other words, you are admitting that we are violating those nations' soveignty.

Thus breaking international law.

Furthermore, we are breaking domestic law by sanctioning the assassination of foreign nationals.

[bighart]

130. I, like I suspect you, will side with the UN and the ACLU on this

over the government and I couldn't care less how is in office and sanctioning it IT IS WRONG ON EVERY FRONT. In my opinion this is as big a mistake as the Iraq war was. This policy creates far more enemies than it eliminates.

[baldguy]

13. Using this standard every President in the 20th century is a mass murderer

And every President in the 21st century will be.

[MadHound]

16. Umm, where are you getting that from?

Not every president has broken both domestic and international law in this manner.

[baldguy]

18. No, they broke domestic and international law differently.

Until very recently, the technology to mount offensive weapons on remotely piloted drones didn't exist. Before that, if the President decided someone needed to be killed we just bombed them, or invaded their country, which caused the deaths of many more innocent civilians than drone strikes would have.

[MadHound]

19. Well, first of all I'd like to see the evidence that all Presidents are so guilty,

Second of all, you're making the argument that, "hey, if everybody else has done it, then it is OK if the Obama administration does it." Sorry, but that simply doesn't fly, either as a legal or moral defense.

In essence, you are condoning the deaths of women and children because you believe that every other president has done the same. Doesn't make it morally right or legal.

[baldguy]

20. Are you ready to condemn Clinton for bombing Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Serbia?

Kennedy & Johnson for bombing Vietnam? Truman for bombing Korea? Should ha have held off on Hiroshima & Nagasaki because there were a handful of Americans in those cities? FDR who killed 25,000 civilians in Dresden? Hell, even Carter funded, armed and trained mujaheddin terrorists in Afghanistan that spawned the Taliban and al Qaeda.

There will always be people in the world who are willing & eager to kill anonymous Americans. And there will always be places that will offer these people safe havens. You would have us ignore them & leave them alone. That's the kind of thinking which allowed 9/11 to happen.

[MadHound]

21. Umm, I have condemned those actions,

But again, you are making the argument that just because other presidents have enacted policies that are legally and morally wrong that it is OK for Obama to do the same. That is not a great argument to make, in fact it is one of the worse arguments you can make.

As far as another 911 happening, killing innocent women and children via drones is certain to bring about another 911 style attack. All those drone attacks are doing is radicalizing more and more people, angering them to the point where they are willing to do anything in order to avenge their losses.

We have never learned the lesson that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

[baldguy]

23. Targeted drones kill far fewer non-combatants than other methods of attack.

But I guess you think killing dozens, or hundreds of people with the primary target with cruise missiles or "smart" bombs is better than just killing 2 or 3. Right? Or, maybe you think entire cities should be carpet-bombed like in WWII?

Sorry to tell you, but the Earth is a violent place. We can't just sit back and ignore people who want to kill anonymous Americans. If Obama can have members of our military & intelligence services eye-ball these people & kill them, more power to him. If he can do it without putting those service members in harm's way using drones, all the more.

And if a small few innocents are killed in the process, the blame belongs with the person who brought the drone to them - the terrorist.

[stevenleser]

26. Very well said. nt

[polly7]

28. How many people from other countries are over here in NA killing Americans?

The 9/11 highjackers are, obviously ...... dead. Bin Laden is dead, as are many, many who were seen to have been associated with him.

What now? Why the drones bases in the ME and Africa? When do you realize that these drones are just an 'easier - less offensive (only if you're the one using them) way to establish yourself in areas all over the world that would see tanks and ground troops as a full invasion and acts of war?

[OldDem2012]

40. "How many people from other countries are over here in NA killing Americans?".....

....Isn't that the point? That's the bottom line, isn't it? We don't want people from other countries over here killing Americans. That's been the basis of US foreign policy since the end of the US Civil War when we learned first hand how terrible war can be on American soil. Unfortunately, we had to relearn that lesson the hard way on 9/11.

[OldDem2012]

31. +100. Some DU posters seem to have forgotten those salient facts in their rush....

....to criticize any action of this President.

The President simply can't win no matter what he does. The Far-Right screams he's a Socialist while the Far-Left accuses him of being a Fascist.

[The Link]

32. Thats a load of crap.

There are certainly "other methods of attack" that kill fewer non-combatants.

[OldDem2012]

42. Name one that doesn't involve putting US troops in harm's way, or uses weapons....

....that will kill a lot more people on impact.

Name one.

[The Link]

44. Ah, there is the caveat for you drone lovers.

"US troops in harm's way"

[OldDem2012]

45. Answer the question please, and please try to skip the labels and name-calling. nt.

[stevenleser]

53. They can't. There is no response to that. They prefer to go on calling the President, the

administration, and those of us who realize there is no current better option "bad people".

They dont have a better option themselves, but those who disagree with them are "bad people"

[The Link]

62. Why do people who support the killing of non-combatants...

value the lives of US soldiers over those of innocent foreign civilians?

[OldDem2012]

71. Why can't you answer my question? nt.

[The Link]

75. You answered it yourself. nt.

[OldDem2012]

82. Just to be completely clear on this issue, here is your original statement:....

"There are certainly "other methods of attack" that kill fewer non-combatants."

I asked you to name one, a question you are apparently unable to answer.

Does that just about cover it?

[The Link]

84. Just to be clear, you asked a question and tried to limit the answers

to what you feel the answer to be.

It was a question that you really weren't looking for an answer to. It was an attempt to frame your own love of drone assassination. Find someone else to play your game.

[OldDem2012]

90. You made the claim that there were other methods that could be used besides drone attacks....

....I asked you to provide one. To date, you have been unable to do so and have attempted at least twice to shift the focus of the conversation.

Since you think this discussion is a "game", I guess this is "game over".

[The Link]

97. You realize people can read your question, right?

You are leaving out the part where you eliminated what you don't like as a legitimate answer. The answer that would violate your value of US lives over foreign brown peoples lives. We called what you are doing quibbling where I went to school. People got kicked out for it.

[OldDem2012]

104. Answer the question, please. What other alternative do you believe we can use....

....Where I went to school we were required to answer questions directly without dodging and weaving.

So, let's see what you have...what other alternatives to drones do you have in mind? Inquiring minds want to know.

[The Link]

105. So you are restating your question without leading the answer now?

If so, I appreciate the backtrack.

[OldDem2012]

135. Just answer the question and I'll stop asking it. See how simple that is? nt.

[MadHound]

51. So,

This man, an ally, working in our best interests, brought it on himself?

You are blaming the victims here, yet who is launching these attacks? Who is breaking both international and domestic law by launching these attacks? Oh, yeah, the Obama administration.

[randome]

76. Sure. Civilian deaths due to 'friendly fire' NEVER occurred before the invention of drones.

Do you really think Obama wanted this man to die?

[The Link]

80. I don't think he wanted him to die.

I also don't think he cares that he died.

[randome]

100. Only a Commander-In-Chief can make these kind of calculations.

Which process saves more lives than it costs? Which method is best at reaching our objectives?

It is not a responsibility I would want. Obama seems to be the most intellectually astute President we have ever had in office.

I truly doubt he is as cold-blooded as you think.

[MadHound]

83. That is the difference between a live assassin and a drone,

The live assassin could distinguish between the enemy and the ally. The drone, not so much, as we've seen, time and again.

[randome]

88. You see the picture in the link you posted, right?

Nothing anywhere near the building. Granted, a lot more damage may have been done during the strike but it appears to be another wide-open area. One in which a sniper would have an impossible time sneaking in to get in range.

Supposing a sniper did get that close. Once he/she fired, he/she would be killed as quickly as possible.

[DirkGently]

119. "Civilian deaths" and "friendly fire" are not the same thing.

This is not a case of simply mistaking the target. This program authorizes mass killings under circumstances guaranteed to terrorize people we have no cognizable right to be targeting. They aren't workers in an Axis munitions factory.

These are foreign nationals (except the ones who are Americans) we are executing daily on the premise that some among them may be determined, through a process including no public scrutiny or review whatsoever, be or be "associated" with any one of dozens of groups who may or not wish the United States ill of some kind at some point.

Whatever our claimed good faith, the fact is the past two administrations have relied on laughably implausible interpretations of the law which are, as a matter of fact, so broad as to include the killing of just about anyone -- a right no one thinks this or any nation has.

No one will conceptualize these killings the way you suggest. They are not "accidents" in any kind of credible way. We are simply claiming the right to kill anyone, anywhere, along with a percentage of bystanders, many of whom by virtue of the circumstances-- aerial bombing of ground targets in populated areas -- are definitively innocent of any attack on us.

It's brutal, cowardly, and amoral. At the core of it is an utterly indefensible premise, which is that the United States will now be in a perennial state of "war" in all parts of the globe at all times, until no one anywhere wants to "terrorize" us. It's a claim that is specious on its face.

We wouldn't tolerate that logic from another country, not for one millisecond. We are completely undermining our claimed standing as a nation that uses force responsibly and defensibly. There is no need to get into ideological discussions about "imperialism" or exploitation of resources.

This is simply not the way a just civilization behaves, and we will pay dearly for it in 1000 ways.

[dreamnightwind]

153. Thank you for this excellent post - nt

[green for victory]

56. the bombing of Serbia was the first PNAC war

http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

Isn't it "funny" how after the war a base sprouted up.
A base that has seen a fair share of controversy.



The United States Army has been criticised for using the base as a detention facility, and for the conditions faced by the detainees there.[2] In November 2005, Alvaro Gil-Robles, the human rights envoy of the Council of Europe, described the camp as a "smaller version of Guantanamo" following a visit. The Swiss newspaper Weltwoche reported, "A German report by the Berlin Institute for European Policy, produced last year on behalf of the German army... is particularly critical of the role of the US, which had obstructed European investigations and which had been opened up to political extortion by the existence of a secret CIA detention center on the grounds of Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo...”[3] In response, the US Army stated that there were no secret detention facilities in the Camp. Bondsteel's mission has faded and its value doubtful, so it may close soon.

The entire basis for that war was lies.

Don't believe it? Doesn't change the facts.

http://tenc.net/yugo.htm

[The Link]

24. "Some of us don't equate terrorists to ordinary Americans."

A statement I saw on another thread by a DU'er. In fact, the poster may have already posted in this thread.

[PDJane]

58. I'm going to point out that every one of those victims was a civilian,

since the US is NOT at war with Pakistan...where the majority of the drone strikes are occurring. The US has made enemies of Pakistan, however, because of the drone strikes.

It's a crime against humanity.

[randome]

66. How do you declare war against a mountainous region?

One reason we are in Pakistan is because the Pakistani government wants us there. They pay lip service to the idea that we are intruders but our military tells their military where we propose to make a strike and they clear the airspace for us.

They cooperate with us because they do not want the government to be overthrown at the behest of another Islamic dictatorship.

They furnished information as to OBL's whereabouts then denied to their people they did so. The situation between the Pakistani government, their military and the fundamentalists in their midst is a very complex one.

[MadHound]

69. I suggest you read the NYU/SU study fully and completely,

You will find that the scenario you suggest simply isn't true.

Pakistan has condemned our drone policy time and again.

[randome]

72. It's not a scenario. It's true.

Our military DOES warn their military before we make a drone strike. The Pakistani military then clears the airspace around the region.

Pakistan DID furnish us information about OBL's whereabouts then deny to their people they did so.

Sure, there could be any number of liars in this chain but my feeling is that this is true.

Obama is not the bloodthirsty tyrant some want to make him out to be.

[MadHound]

89. Well, the number of dead innocents, the amount of destruction left behind, belies your assertion.

And again, Pakistan has condemned the drone strikes repeatedly, and asked the US to stop them, repeatedly. That is about all that Pakistan can do, after all, they are a weak country with the world's strongest military force on their doorstep. What do you expect them to do, try and defend themselves from drones? That would simply bring the full wrath of the America military down on their country.

[OldDem2012]

79. The US relationship with Pakistan has always been an up-and-down affair. nt.

[polly7]

94. Exactly what I was told on another board by supporters of the Iraq invasion ...

the relationship was complicated, but they knew the Iraqi people wanted and welcomed it. Seriously. I kid you not.

[OldDem2012]

99. The other board must be FR, because I've never seen anything like that on DU....

....nor have I ever personally supported the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan. None of the 9/11 hijackers came from these two countries, even though Al Qaeda's primary base was located in Afghanistan. Additionally, Iraq had no relationship with Al Qaeda and did not have any WMDs. The real long-range purpose for invading those two countries was to further isolate and encircle Iran. I don't support military action against Iran, either.

In fairness, I did support going after the Al Qaeda bases wherever they existed or currently exist, but not as an excuse for an extended stay or for building permanent bases.

[polly7]

102. No, it wasn't FR. I've never posted at FR. It was a crime board, actually. nt.

[LWolf]

92. I have never blindly supported any politician

because of their party affiliation; I don't now, and I never will.

I have always opposed the policies of my own party I've seen as wrong and harmful.

I've opposed much of Obama's policies as benefiting and harmful neoliberal agendas as soon as they became visible; some before election day in '08, some as he began to make obviously troubling appointments before his first inauguration, and others as they've unfolded since then. Much of DU has clearly not appreciated my loyalty to issues rather than party and personality, but that hasn't stopped me.

I NEVER bought the fear propaganda surrounding 9/11 that brought us the patriot acts, the erosion of civil liberties, and the bogus "war on terror."

I don't stand for this.

[whatchamacallit]

107. If it were American kids would drones be 'legal, ethical and wise'?

Defenders of these policies, privileged and safe in the belly of the beast, can indulge in abstract rationalizations about the more humane way to kill. Pathetic.

[randome]

108. That's why the Commander-In-Chief is the one to make those calls.

That doesn't mean we should blindly question whomever is at the top of the chain. But I truly doubt Obama is as bloodthirsty as some here want to believe.

[whatchamacallit]

109. Right

That deference would apply to CIC Bush, Romney, Palin...? Fetch me my knee highs.

[randome]

111. No. I think Bush demonstrated he had no moral center.

I think Obama has demonstrated the opposite on many other fronts.

So I am willing to give him some leeway on this. But I have my eye on him and his actions the same as all of us do.

[whatchamacallit]

112. Why don't you folks understand that these powers won't be limited to Saint Obama?

[randome]

114. I think most of us agree there need to be formal reviews of targeted killings.

It sounds as if Congress is getting close to putting something in place.

The discussions on DU, however, inevitably get bogged down on whether or not drone killings save more lives than they cost. I think they do and I'm hardly the only one who thinks so.

Then there are those who want to portray Obama as some bloodthirsty dictator eagerly wanting to kill as many people as possible. I think that's patently false, too.

People who post their opinions are portrayed as not caring that innocents die, which gets the conversation even more bogged down.

This thread is ranging all over the place. If it was limited to formal reviews for targeted killings -or the justification for being in other countries in the first place- there would be a lot fewer disagreements.

[MadHound]

129. Instead of "formal reviews", which can easily turn into rubber stamps,

How about we stop breaking international and domestic law instead? Makes sense to me.

[MadHound]

128. Bush didn't have a moral center,

But then again, he didn't have his own personal kill list either, updated weekly.

Actions, they speak louder than words.

[MadHound]

122. No, that is why are judiciary system needs to make those calls,

At least in regards to drone strikes on US citizens.

Oh, 920 innocents dead(a minimal figure), 140 children dead(again, a minimal figure), I think the numbers speak best about how bloodthirsty Obama is.

[Zorra]

110. Yeh, so what, what's your point? Most of those children who were killed or wounded were just

poor, no count peasant kids. They died so that imperialistic, environmentally destructive multinational corporate conglomerates that exploit workers around the world would be safe from the workers they exploit. The global market must be free to expand, exploit, and destroy without obstruction. There's a lot of money on the line here, and worrying about suffering peasants in other countries is not part of the program.

As taxpayers funding the designated US global police agency, it is the solemn duty of every American to support all effort to protect the interests of our 1% masters. That's why over half of every one of your tax dollars goes to support the protection of global corporate holdings!

So just chill out, have a coke, watch some TV, and stop worrying your pretty little head about matters that only concern the 1%!

Or you might be next.


bitter, distressed

[whatchamacallit]

115. You Rawk!

[Zorra]

118. Thanks. Looks like you were thinking the

sane same thing in post #107. You beat me to it while I was writing my post.

Awesome!

[Catherina]

152. +1000 n/t

[Deep13]

117. Jesus Christ!

[polly7]

124. Just as 'military age males' were locked in and given kill status in Fallujah.

In fact, Feinstein went all in for the Obama administration, claiming that civilian deaths(and remember here, according to the Obama administration, all military age males in the strike zone are counted as combatants, which means most of these deaths are of women and children) are only in the single digits, max, for any given month.

I don't hate or even dislike Obama and think he's done, and is doing, some great things ..... but on these drones, he's very wrong.

[Doctor_J]

141. Drone murder is now OK among large chunks of DU

along with union-busting, destruction of public schools, cuts to medicare and SS benefits, and Wall Street crime.

There are many who will get on board with literally ANYTHING that Obama does. For all the good he's done holding back the Repukes and advancing a few initiatives (timidly), he's pretty much destroyed the soul of the party.

[randome]

142. So how many souls does the country have?

Clinton was...lacking...in every point you mention. Why didn't we lose our soul then?

[Doctor_J]

143. That was a major hit

Obama has finished it off. Those who still believe in the ideals of FDR, JFK, and LBJ are no local welcome in the party, except as someone to blame when the "3rd Way" results in an electoral trouncing, when we are blamed for not going to the polls to support the initiatives mentioned in my previous post.

[Douglas Carpenter]

150. knr