Let's call Predator drone attacks what it is: murder

[The Northerner]

It took the letters page of the Independent newspaper to confirm my instinctive reaction when I heard that the US Government had assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki, a leading figure in al-Qaeda, in Yemen. The Americans had sent two Predator drones to the area. They fired Hellfire missiles at a vehicle containing Awlaki and three other suspected al-Qaeda members. The drone operator was probably working at an air force base in the US. I picture him or her later driving home after a busy day in the office.

On the letters page, Patricia Sheerin wrote that she searched coverage of the attack in vain for just a few words condemning ''yet another cowardly assassination''. Roger Jones lamented that ''when we see the President of the United States calling a press conference for the second time in a matter of weeks to boast about having committed murder, it's hard not to wonder whether the words 'moral compass' still have any meaning at all in his unhappy country''. In fact the media as a whole was largely silent on the moral issues. Why was this?

Perhaps because the US has been conducting drone strikes on individuals since 2004. Reported drone strikes in north-west Pakistan by the US, for instance, including 60 so far in 2011 alone, have killed thousands of individuals in seven years, of whom many, but not all, were described as militants. The New America Foundation in Washington has collated these figures. But north-west Pakistan is akin to a war zone because of its porous frontier with Afghanistan, whereas Yemen is not. So a second reason for the lack of adverse comment must be that Awlaki was, by all accounts, a bad man.

He was an American citizen born in 1971. As a Muslim cleric, he openly endorsed violence. In 2006 the Yemeni authorities detained him on charges of plotting to kidnap a US military attache. He seems to have inspired many Islamist terrorists. President Barack Obama first authorised the CIA to kill him in 2009. The following year, the US Treasury designated the cleric ''a specially designated global terrorist'', blocked his assets and made it a crime for Americans to do business with him. Later in 2010, British intelligence named him in an assessment of major threats.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/lets-call-predator-drone-attack-what-is-is-murder/2316149.aspx

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Davis_X_Machina]

3. its...

....what nation-states do.

All this discussion is to answer 'under what circumstances'.

[hack89]

25. What a heavy burden you bear

life here among the DU Philistines must be almost too much for an enlightened individual such as yourself to bear.

[sabrina 1]

30. You don't think they are murder? Do you know how many

children and innocent people have been slaughtered with these weapons? How flippant of you to dismiss their lives as if they were worthless.

We used to oppose these weapons and in fact the left wanted them to be declared illegal after several crime scenes showing the body parts of little children whose parents tried to identify so that they could at least bury their beloved children, were reported on investigative journalists. There was outrage on the Left as there should be. What happened? Where did all these 'lefties' come from who now support this egregious form of murder of innocent people?

[Cid_B]

34. What is the difference between this and artillery again?

Love those drones... One more thing to keep my Soldiers from getting shot in the face. Love em...

[sabrina 1]

58. What are our soldiers doing in other people's countries again?

As for 'what is the difference'. For one thing, the CIA relies on information from informants on the groundto know where to use them. False information pointing towards, eg, neighbors who the informant may not be getting along with, has been given. A great way to get rid of people you don't like. Just become an informant, direct the CIA towards your 'enemy' and let them do the dirty work for you. Which happens often and may be why so many innocent people have been murdered by them.

What do our soldiers have to fear from the hundreds of children we have killed with these weapons? And since when did the 'left' fall in love with these cowardly, imprecise weapons that hopefully will one day be illegal?

We on the left used to oppose the use of drones, mainly because we took the trouble to find out the devastation they have caused to innocent lives.

Very glad to see there is a growing worldwide movement to make them illegal as are other weapons in war zones.

Meantime though, someone's making an awful lot of money on yet another instrument of death. And that's really all that matters! Third world countries make good show cases for all of our new weapons. Who cares if we kill members of wedding parties who are poor brown people? Isn't that why they are there, sitting on our resources?

Despicable to see the left's flip flop on so many 'principled' positions. No wonder the people are flooding to the streets now fully aware that there are no principles in this government. Just politics after all.

[Honeycombe8]

42. I think it's like any weapon. It's not that they are used. It's HOW they are used.

In the latest incident, it seems to have been programmed on a specific vehicle/location containing only AQ.

There have been incidents in the past, though, where a number of innocent people were killed. I remember a wedding party, where the U.S. mistakenly thought something else was going on. I remember other incidents like that, one in particular where it hit the wrong target (a mistake). The U.S. apologized, but those innocent people were gone.

But the latest incident, if true, is how I think they are supposed to be used, or should be used. And seems more careful and kills fewer people than driving a tank in there and shooting everything in sight.

[sabrina 1]

59. Statistics show that 9 out of 10 people killed by drones were

innocent men, women and children. But someone is making a lot of money from them. I wonder who we are selling them to? As Jeremy Scahill discovered when in vestigating our secret war in Pakistan, Blackwater didn't go away, they went to help operate the US Drone program in the Pakistan area. And we know that if Blackwater is involved, no one has to worry about any innocent people being harmed.

[AverageJoe90]

49. My biggest problem with the drones is that innocent people have in fact, been killed.

TBH, if it weren't for all the dead innocents, I wouldn't really be complaining here since they HAVE taken out actual terrorists in the past.....although I still can't figure out just how these drones managed to kill all the non-combatants; although I do wonder if there are some people at the controls who really don't want to fight terrorism but are in it just to kill more South Asians? Sadly, it seems plausible to me at this point, and if so, then the criminals who did intentionally murder innocents ought to be held accountable.

[sabrina 1]

60. Well, since the drone operators have to rely on informants on the ground

nothing to stop those informants from pointing them in the direction of people THEY consider to be enemies.

Since the beginning, when we actually had a few investigative journalists on the ground in the aftermath of one of these strikes, and were able to read of the horror they inflict on innocent villagers, most decent people around the globe have opposed their use and there is an effort to have them banned.

And once upon a time, the 'Left' opposed them. But that was when a Republican was using them. Now, it seems that they don't kill as painfully since it's a Democrat using them.

Maybe if Americans paid attention to the people who have lost their babies and loved ones, blown to bits with little left to bury, who are suing the US government for those tragic losses and who have been out in the streets of their countries protesting the killing of their innocent civilians, they would not be so cavalier about this government's killing of people in their own countries with our latest, shiny new weapon which we are no doubt selling to others to use on more innocent people. Because in the end, it's always all about money.

But with the left now on board with these war crimes, ending these atrocities will have to come from outside influences. This country has become one of the most dangerous in the world now, according to most international polls. But Americans remain blindly self-righteous about their killing machine and then wonder why anyone hates us.

[AverageJoe90]

61. Okay, that makes sense too.

Well, if that's the case, we need look at the informants, too. Could some of them perhaps have been sabotaging attempts to get rid of real terrorists? Just a thought.

[teddy51]

2. I agree with you as well, would have expected this from Bush, but not Obama. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

4. Were the 9/11 attacks murder, too?

Just want to know where you stand on this.

[Taverner]

6. Oh come on. Nine-Eleven?

I honestly think we should change the Godwin rule from Nazis to 9/11

It is the refuge of the clueless

[customerserviceguy]

8. So, how do you feel about it?

Was it murder, or did we have it coming?

[Taverner]

11. We all got it coming. Some sooner than others.

I am beginning to think 9/11 was deserved, however

You can only be a bully for so long before someone strikes back

I blame LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush for 9/11

[NutmegYankee]

18. That's damned disgusting.

What the hell man. You do realize that children also died in the attacks? It's hard to argue that a two year-old deserved to die.

[Taverner]

19. Funny, we killed thousands of children in Vietnam, Cambodia, Phillipines, Iraq, Panama....

...El Salvador, Nicaragua, Germany, Japan, Italy....

Oh, and not to mention America itself.

[NutmegYankee]

20. And yet I don't consider it ever deserved for a child to die

except for one instance, and that's if the child is actively killing people and has to be stopped with force to save others.

[Taverner]

39. I don't either. My point is not that we "deserved" it but that it was inevitable

None of us deserve violence or death

Even that kid killing people

Yes, I said "deserved" - very poor choice of words

But at this point, it's impossible not to connect the dots

[I Have A Dream]

7. Absolutely.

However, it's unclear to me who actually committed those murders. Whoever was responsible for those acts committed murder. If it was a group of Muslim men, then they committed murder. If it was the US government, then those people committed murder.

[customerserviceguy]

10. Ok, still leaving yourself some wiggle room, I see

But at least we agree that it was murder. Thanks.

[I Have A Dream]

14. I honestly don't know who did it.

I really wish that I could say with 100% certainty that it was some foreign group, but I can't. I can say without hesitation though that it was murder.

I don't consider it to be wiggle room. I don't have any problem calling anyone out who condones, promotes or commits violence.

[customerserviceguy]

36. Ok, then answer me this

If the Repukes and Bush did it, why hasn't a Democratic administration figured that out, and exposed it? It would guarantee Obama's re-election, and would probably bring him back the House, and allow him to keep the Senate.

Has everybody who was in on it been completely silent, without leaving a single verifiable clue for ten years? Has 100% of the mainstream media been involved in the cover-up as well?

Or is the official story the answer? Why is it hard to believe that islamofascist forces could and did pull it off, when they've consistently tried so many times before?

We can both see how Bushco used it to his advantage, but he can't be dumb as a bag of rocks and clever enough to pull this thing off within nine months of getting into office at the same time.

[I Have A Dream]

40. If the government had anything to do with it...

I don't think that Bush would have been the one who orchestrated it. Even if "islamofascist forces" were involved, it wouldn't rule out others being involved as well. Maybe we'll never know the full story. Maybe we already do.

I guess I don't necessarily trust the official story because of everything else that was being done by the administration at the time in reference to voting irregularities, manipulation of the media, etc.

In reference to President Obama, I couldn't say. I can't explain many things that he's done since he took office, so the fact that his administration hasn't done anything about this particular issue doesn't make me more confident that the official story is true.

[customerserviceguy]

43. I guess I just apply Occam's Razor, and go for the simplest explanation

Islamic terrorists put this thing together, and hoodwinked both Democratic and Rethuglican administrations to pull it off. The drone killings are simply the natural consequence of that, so I have no qualms about them, even if you acknowledge some thin veneer of US citizenship for this hateful 'religious' leader.

Of course, using drones really did take a lot of people by surprise, and maybe the Nobel Peace Prize committee will go back to handing out the award for actual peaceful things accomplished, rather than fronting it to someone.

[OnyxCollie]

51. It was a Democrat who took impeachment off the table.

You seem to be under the false impression that Democrats and Republicans are opponents on different "teams." If you see that they both work for the same corporate masters, it explains a great deal.

As for the media, unless they operate as the official stenographers for the administration, they get flak. Remember what happened to Dan Rather?

Have you seen anything on the news regarding Cheney's secret energy meetings? That even went as far as the SCOTUS (Cheney v US District Court).

And the "clues" have been there, if you're willing to open your eyes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3487945

ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL MUKASEY

On March 27, 2008, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, speaking at the Commonwealth Club in defense of the Bush Administrations surveillance program and proposing changes to FISA, made the statement that before the 2001 terrorist attacks

“We knew that there had been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn’t know precisely where it went. You’ve got 3,000 people who went to work that day, and didn’t come home, to show for that.” (Egelko, 2008).

In a letter to Attorney General Mukasey from Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Jerry Nadler, Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; and Rep. Bobby Scott, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security (hereinafter “Conyers Letter”), Rep. Conyers responds to Attorney General Mukasey’s statement:

This statement is very disturbing for several reasons. Initially, despite extensive inquiries after 9/11, I am aware of no previous reference, in the 9/11 Commission report or elsewhere, to a call from a known terrorist safe house in Afghanistan to the United States which, if it had been intercepted, could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. In addition, if the Administration had known of such communications from suspected terrorists, they could and should have been intercepted based on existing FISA law. For example, even assuming that a FISA warrant was required to intercept such calls, as of 9/11 FISA specifically authorized such surveillance on an emergency basis without a warrant for a 48 hour period. If such calls were known about and not intercepted, serious additional concerns would be raised about the government’s failure to take appropriate action before 9/11. (Conyers, Nadler, Scott, 2008).

In a statement provided to Glenn Greenwald (2008) at Salon, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, stated:

I am unfamiliar with the telephone call that Attorney General Michael Mukasey cited in his appearance in San Francisco on March 27. The 9/11 Commission did not receive any information pertaining to its occurrence.

Additionally, Greenwald (2008) provides an email response from Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission Executive Director (and former Counselor to Condolleeza Rice) (ellipses in original):

Not sure of course what the AG had in mind, although the most important signals intelligence leads related to our report -- that related to the Hazmi-Mihdhar issues of January 2000 or to al Qaeda activities or transits connected to Iran -- was not of this character. If, as he says, the USG didn't know where the call went in the US, neither did we. So unless we had some reason to link this information to the 9/11 story....

In general, as with several covert action issues for instance, the Commission sought (and succeeded) in publishing details about sensitive intelligence matters where the details were material to the investigative mandate in our law.

Greenwald (2008) offers two possible scenarios regarding Mukasey’s statement. Either

(1) The Bush Administration concealed this obviously vital episode from the 9/11 Commission and from everyone else, until Mukasey tearfully trotted it out last week; or
(2) Mukasey, the nation’s highest law enforcement officer, made this up in order to scare and manipulate Americans into believing that FISA and other surveillance safeguards caused the 9/11 attacks and therefore the Government should be given unchecked spying powers.

[Taverner]

13. I have no doubt it was Mohammed Atta and crew

My question is: how come it didn't happen sooner?

We've been an imperial bully since our inception, and have waged wars of genocide both inside and out of our borders. Some people are under the delusion that because we took out Hitler, we deserve to call ourselves the good guys. Ironic, since in that same war, we needlessly bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima - at a time when the OSS was reporting Japanese plans for surrender.

The victims of 9/11 were innocent, but this country, this empire, is not.

[I Have A Dream]

5. Count me in too. nt

[AngkorWot]

9. War is hell.

Better a drone than a jet fighter with a smart bomb. Better a jet fighter with a smart bomb than an old fashioned bomber.

[xiamiam]

12. i think drones are a punk move..nt

[Cid_B]

21. Since I have yet to get an answer from anyone on this... ever...

I refer you to post 17 as well...

[xiamiam]

46. imo..a lowpoint for this discussion board..i read it..i'm not impressed..nt

[Cid_B]

50. Got it... you think warfare should be fair....

My Soldiers have to take more chances so the bad guy gets a fair shot. Noted...

[xiamiam]

52. i dont believe in war period..never have..drones are a sucker punch

strangling a defenseless person..its punk and gets no respect from me

[Cid_B]

53. Care to address the point?

You might not believe in other real things but they exist.

Just answer the question... Should I place my Soldier at greater risk to give the other guy a fair crack at taking his life?

[xiamiam]

54. no, i wont answer that question. It's silly. The question is why we need to be at war?

Why our largest industry in the us has become manufacturing weapons? Who profits?
Why are sending drones into places we are not even at war with? Why are we even in Afghanistan now? Why is the suicide rate among soldiers higher than ever? How many maimed and wounded from this ten year debacle?

[Cid_B]

55. All valid questions... but not part of the discussion...

You can wish really hard and hide under your covers but this is reality. If it comes down to it, it will be one of mine or one of theirs. I'm all about making it one of theirs.

I hope someday you can join the world of adults and address things as they are and not how you'd like them to be.

[Lurks Often]

15. The method used is irrelevant

it doesn't matter whether you use a drone or a cruise missile or a jet with a laser guided bomb or an artillery strike.*

What matters was the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki a necessary and right thing to do? If it is true that Anwar al-Awlaki was in contact with Maj Hasan and encouraged the attack on Ft Hood, then he is guilty of at least accessory to multiple counts of felony murder.



*The brutal truth is that a drone cruising at about 100 mph and armed with a Hellfire missile is far more of a precision weapon then a manned aircraft cruising at 500mph, cruise missile or a 155mm (6") artillery shell. The only way to be more precise would to be send a Seal Team (or it's equivalent) or a sniper. A "boots on the ground" operation takes time to plan and time to get everything into place.

[OwnedByFerrets]

16. K and R....what what its worth.....the bravery of being out of range.

[hack89]

26. So war is a school yard game now? We have to play fair? nt

[Cid_B]

32. I post this little spiel when I see someone jump on the "Drones are da devil"

bandwagon and I have yet to get an answer. I'd really like one so head on over to post 17 and let me know why I should expose my Soldiers to any more danger than I have to.

[Cid_B]

17. Ok genius, new plan then...

Next deployment I will send an evite to the local warlord. I will try to be as respectful as possible of local holidays and the poppy harvesting.

We will agree on a local, flat area where we can meet. (We wouldn't want any unfair use of terrain)

I'll line up 100 of my guys in a big line and he can line up 100 of his. I will ask him to don some sort of uniform for easy identification. I won't bring any of my body armor because the warlord doesn't have the same for his guys. Also, 'll make sure that I come to within the 400 meter effective range of his AKs, even though my M4s can do better.


When the UN referee blows the whistle we will just shoot the ever loving shit out of each other. Everyone dies except for that one last MFer and he is declared the winner.

Remember, its all about being fair and giving those fucks an equal shot.

[texastoast]

23. LOL

War is hell. I much prefer targeted, ah, obsolescence. I would have cheered had Bush taken out OBL without taking out the Iraqi people and our military. He never failed to disappoint.

[pscot]

24. How about we skip the next deployment

and just go bowling.

[Demeter]

22. Use of Drones Are War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

[hack89]

28. There is nothing unique about them as far as international law is concerned.

just how do they differ from regular planes dropping regular bombs?

[Demeter]

35. Just like land mines

No human oversight and responsibility to see that no innocents and non-combatants are harmed. No different than the IEDs, either.

[Cid_B]

37. Aside from being the exact opposite of what you said...

You are spot on... :eyes:

You think those drones fly themselves? You think there isn't an authorization process to let a hellfire loose?

[hack89]

38. Again, how are they different from regular plane dropping regular bombs? nt

[bluestate10]

64. SILENCE!!! nt

[KoKo]

27. K&R!

[bluestate10]

29. I have no problem at all with the Drone attacks.

Would like to see strikes executed daily. The people that are killed deserve killing. If they are allowed to live, they will kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of people.

[xiamiam]

45. bs..you watch too much tv..nt

[bluestate10]

63. Too busy to watch television. nt

[sad sally]

47. Do you seriously mean what you say? That every man, woman and child

that has been killed by US drones deserved to die because they are unseen strangers who are different than you?

Even when the drone strikes get the intended target, the blast isn't limited to that particular building. Neighboring houses, not made to withstand hellfire missals, are also demolished, crushing, dismembering and killing those inside. Innocent people who are not terrorists.

[bluestate10]

62. The USA is taking great efforts to avoid killing women and children.

More than I can say for terrorists that would wipe out anything in a target, including a room full of babies. I have no concern at all with those types of people being tracked and killed once the conditions are right to kill just them and their adherents.

[sabrina 1]

65. Then they are not doing a very good job considering that only one

in ten of those killed are supposedly 'terrorists'. All the rest are innocent, babies, pregnant women, children. We sure are making friends and influencing enemies, aren't we, then we have the nerve to ask 'why do they hate us'. Frankly I'm amazed at how tolerant those whose loved ones have been slaughterd, over one million at least, in our wars based on lies, are. Some of them have tried to get justice by suing the US, others, thousands, have demonstrated peacefully in Afghanistan and Pakistan to demand these killings stop. But we, arrogant as always, simply ignore them.

Nor do Americans see these reactions to the murder of people who have done nothing other than live in their own countries.

And now the 'left' is on board with all of this? Shameful to see how cruel and uncaring this country is. At least when Bush was president the 'left' claimed to care which gave some hope that it might one day stop. Looks like it was just political after all.

'we don't do body counts'! and to think I once thought this did not represent us as a nation because at least half the country was shocked by such remarks. How wrong those of us who actually meant it, were.

[polly7]

31. They are murder. K & R. nt.

[Bloke 32]

33. How many states have the death penalty?

Entirely rhetorical.

[scarletwoman]

41. K & R, for all the good it will do.

Lotta bloodthirsty warmonger types around here these days.

As if killing ever solved anything...

[Gregorian]

44. Unless it's imminent self defense, it's murder.

I believe this is at the heart of what America has been doing that is so wrong. From Vietnam to the first Iraq invasion to the predator killings.

[RegieRocker]

48. It's what PRO LIFE is all about don't you know.

Kill before being killed. The question is "If the pro lifers knew he would have become a terrorist before he was born, would they demand that he be aborted?"

[gratuitous]

56. But the United States is exceptionally exceptional, you see

Sure, namby-pambies like Gandhi and Dr. King can whine all they want about the inability of violence to overcome violence, but they never reckoned on the awesome awesomeness of the United States. We will overcome violence with violence, and it will be successful. Any violence visited on us will not be the righteous retribution that the United States deals in (exclusively, it goes without saying), but because everyone else is a murderous thug, or hates us for our freedom, or some other attractive-sounding idea.

And fear not: If you or someone you know or someone you love is killed by the aforementioned murderous thugs, the awesome United States will exact 10, 100, 1,000 deaths of others in holy righteousness. Those corpses will be in honor of your memory! Doesn't that make you feel special, to know that so much death is exacted in your name?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

57. Extrajudicial murder...

...If we're being honest with ourselves.

:cry:

:patriot:

[quaker bill]

66. Would it be better delivered in person?

I have had this discussion with a bunch of weapons engineers. It was at happy hour so they were getting fairly loose. They began discussing the relative morality of the various means to kill people, a good number of which they helped design. I quickly began to fail to see the difference. If the aircraft had a live pilot in it at the scene, it would no longer be a "drone attack", but the targets would be just as dead. If it was a bunch of troops on the ground with assault weapons and grenades, the targets would be just as dead. I am no fan of killing, but I just don't get all the curious and convoluted distinctions people attempt to draw over one method or another chosen to get it done.

Sure, we in theory could have arrested them, put them through a tribunal, and then shot them. Would this be better? I really don't get how or why.

The better choice is not killing people by any means. If I could undo 50+ years of really bad foriegn policy, I would be happy to do so.