Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sad sally

(2,627 posts)
8. My thoughts exactly, Sabrina. I want to fully support the President, but when I heard this:
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 07:02 PM
Feb 2012

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’.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/obama-terror-drones-cia-tactics-in-pakistan-include-targeting-rescuers-and-funerals/

I can only shake my head and ask how on earth did this method of killing - no, murdering innocent people - become acceptable to Americans with absolutely no legal documents or rules of war* allowing it? It turns us into barbarians.

*It is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions to attack rescuers wearing emblems of the Red Cross or Red Crescent. But what if rescuers wear no emblems, or if civilians are mixed in with militants, as the Bureau’s investigation into drone attacks in Waziristan has repeatedly found?

Do the administration’s claims of legality add up? And what of the specific instances of attacks on rescuers and mourners uncovered by the Bureau?

According to a wide range of international law experts consulted by the Bureau, for the CIA’s drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen to be legal they would at the very least need to be covered by the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC).

Professor Dapo Akande, who heads Oxford University’s Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, believes that under LOAC the killing of civilian rescuers is problematic: ‘The question is, can rescuing be regarded as taking part in hostilities, to which for me the answer is clearly “No”. That rescuing is not taking part in hostilities.’

If LOAC does not apply – as some respected lawyers believe is the case – then the far more restrictive international human rights law (IHRL) applies. This explicitly forbids attacks except in the most restricted circumstances, namely when the possibility of being attacked is absolutely imminent.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/a-question-of-legality/


Naz Modirzadeh, Associate Director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at Harvard University, said, ‘Not to mince words here, if it is not in a situation of armed conflict, unless it falls into the very narrow area of imminent threat then it is an extra-judicial execution’, she said. ‘We don’t even need to get to the nuance of who’s who, and are people there for rescue or not. Because each death is illegal. Each death is a murder in that case.’

The Khaisoor incident** was not a one time incident. Between May 2009 and June 2011, at least fifteen attacks on rescuers were reported by credible news media, including the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, ABC News and Al Jazeera.

It is notoriously difficult for the media to operate safely in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Both militants and the military routinely threaten journalists. Yet for three months a team of local researchers has been seeking independent confirmation of these strikes.

**This was the first confirmed attack on rescuers took place in North Waziristan on May 16 2009. According to Mushtaq Yusufzai, a local journalist, Taliban militants had gathered in the village of Khaisor. After praying at the local mosque, they were preparing to cross the nearby border into Afghanistan to launch an attack on US forces. But the US struck first.

A CIA drone fired its missiles into the Taliban group, killing at least a dozen people. Villagers joined surviving Taliban as they tried to retrieve the dead and injured.

But as rescuers clambered through the demolished house the drones struck again. Two missiles slammed into the rubble, killing many more. At least 29 people died in total.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

And let me guess gratuitous Feb 2012 #1
This is where we need a Constitutional amendment! atreides1 Feb 2012 #2
fascism fascisthunter Feb 2012 #3
I was asking about this last week, regarding the use of drones to kill people sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #4
My thoughts exactly, Sabrina. I want to fully support the President, but when I heard this: sad sally Feb 2012 #8
It is heart-breaking to read all of that. And I have been following the escalation sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #11
Yes, I have read Mr. Schahill's article. Tom Englehardt and Nick Turse also have sad sally Feb 2012 #12
It's almost as if the CIA/Blackwater operate with impunity. sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #20
This should be an OP. woo me with science Feb 2012 #27
+1000 G_j Feb 2012 #41
(Obama) ‘Drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties’ G_j Feb 2012 #34
I might have to buy some barrage balloons and chaff dispensers then. arbusto_baboso Feb 2012 #5
Dog bites man hifiguy Feb 2012 #6
Here's the leading manufacturer of these non-human killing machines writing laws governing their use sad sally Feb 2012 #7
Ooooo scary "drones" intaglio Feb 2012 #9
deliberate stalking/spying by government/police agencies who can kill without trial etc msongs Feb 2012 #10
Knee-Jerk response again intaglio Feb 2012 #18
Do you really believe all that tripe? Occulus Feb 2012 #23
It's better than being a conspiracy theorist intaglio Feb 2012 #24
so we should just shrug our shoulders over a huge expansion of domestic drones librechik Feb 2012 #33
Yup, intaglio Feb 2012 #38
How is *anything* to do with drones an iota different than a police helicopter? Stinky The Clown Feb 2012 #13
They don't need pilots KamaAina Feb 2012 #14
When they are killing people? sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #15
It's like a taser... phantom power Feb 2012 #16
They can be the size of birds now, woo me with science Feb 2012 #26
Who is to say that the goverment isn't using animal drones right now? nt bathroommonkey76 Feb 2012 #40
What about when they get to insect size? Fumesucker Feb 2012 #29
OK, here's my brilliant bit of "tinfoil" to add to this discussion... Peace Patriot Feb 2012 #17
I await, with bated breath, intaglio Feb 2012 #19
You make a broad generalization about "conspiracies" with no examples... Peace Patriot Feb 2012 #21
In other words intaglio Feb 2012 #25
i think you underestimate the motive of billions of dollars of profit... Peace Patriot Feb 2012 #30
Where to begin intaglio Feb 2012 #37
Yet that confluence of power relied on one lunatic to shoot Giffords up... Dreamer Tatum Feb 2012 #39
Mitre Corp = MIT Research Stinky The Clown Feb 2012 #28
K&R woo me with science Feb 2012 #22
That is what happens when we have no one in charge Rex Feb 2012 #31
When drones go rogue... sad sally Feb 2012 #32
Well that should give the local news channels Rex Feb 2012 #35
Yay! Another black hole for tax payer money! Nt xchrom Feb 2012 #36
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Drone plane manufacturing...»Reply #8