-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
We are so kind to ourselves. John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, repeats the Obama narrative that touts the “surgical” precision and minimization of collateral damage of “targeted killing” using drones. Minimal collateral damage would be zero, however, a study by NYU School of Law and Stanford Law School puts the number of civilians killed between 474 and 881, including 176 children.
The study calls Obama’s narrative “false.”
The NYU/Stanford study also reports on Obama’s despicable use of the “double tap”:
The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims.
Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur and Professor of Human Rights Law, has said that if first responders “are indeed being intentionally targeted, there is no doubt about the law: those strikes are a war crime.”
Reaper drones carry the Hellfire II laser guided missile with a 20 pound warhead of high explosive, and two 500-pound GBU-12 laser-guided bombs. The GBU-12 has a blast radius of 200 meters, hardly surgical. These are the same weapons that are dropped from other platforms such as manned aircraft. Their precision is not enhanced when launched from drones.
The Hellfire missile has a Circular Error Probability (CEP), the distance from the aiming point that the missile will land 50% of the time, from 9 to 24 feet. he NYU/Stanford study cites a claim that the “double tap” may be a second strike required because the first one missed the target, although that is hardly a mitigating circumstance.
The NYU/Stanford study also notes that “the vast majority of the ‘militants’ targeted have been low-level insurgents.” The number of “high-level” targets is estimated at only 2%.
The Obama administration is using Bush-style tactics to cover up the killing of women and children. This includes over-hyping the accuracy of the weapons and redefining the term “militant” to include anyone who’s killed.
While drones can play an effective role as intelligence gathers and fire support on the battlefield, their inaccuracy makes them unsuitable for “targeted killing.” The probability of a drone strike killing women and children is so high that the drone can be reasonably considered a terror weapon and its use an act of terrorism. The media’s collusion on the Obama narrative enables the terrorism.
H/T: Glenn Greenwald, Kevin Drum, Daniel L. Byman (Brookings), TBIJ, Aviation International News, openDemocracy.
I would be interested to know if anyone here thinks we should not have killed Bin Laden as was done.
Darren, We sent in a team to the aforementioned garrison city to get Bin Laden w/ limited collateral damage and reportedly no US casualties. Dangerous..hell yes. But, we got the SOB and we got some good intelligence.
VIDEO: See What Armed Domestic Drones Look Like
By Josh Bell, ACLU
3/13/2012
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/video-see-what-armed-domestic-drones-look
A big worry about U.S. law enforcement’s expanding use of drones is the lack of rules protecting from privacy violations. But drone manufacturers are also considering offering police the option of arming these remote controlled aircraft with non-lethal (for now) weapons like rubber bullets, Tasers, and tear gas.
As ACLU attorney Catherine Crump puts it, “There’s a big difference between an individual officer on the ground deciding to use force and a drone operator making the same decision. The individual officer is there. He has a nuanced grasp of the situation. A drone officer doesn’t have that same immediate sense of what’s at stake.”
SWM, Being an introvert I too hate noise. Presuming you live in an urban area the helicopters are not CIA, most likely news or police. I can tell you helicopters can be invaluable in catching bad guys. Annoying noise..yes. Frightening, come on!
Darren,
Would you support the use of drone strikes against American terrorists like Timothy McVeigh?
Elaine, Domestic drones MAY be a problem. However, the ACLU has shown that the amount of electonic/telephonic surveillance has grown exponentially since Obama took office. Even Nixon would blush @ the numbers. That’s not a potential problem, it is a clear and present danger.
Exclusive: PowerPoint Shows Drone Industry’s Lobbying Plan To Expand Over Domestic, Law Enforcement Markets
By Lee Fang
http://www.republicreport.org/2012/drone-powerpoint-lobby-plan/
Excerpt:
Drones are mainly associated with the Predator airships that patrol the Afghanistan sky. But thanks to a bipartisan vote last week, the public can expect 30,000 domestic drones flying over the United States in the next eight years.
The dramatic change in policy, which has raised concerns with everyone from civil liberties groups like the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation to the pilot association and the Independent Institute, as well as conservative think tanks, occurred thanks to an aggressive and well-organized effort by drone makers and their lobbyists.
Yesterday, we reported how the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVS), a drone trade group, actually doubled its recent lobbying expenses. Today, we report on a PowerPoint presentation put together by top AUVS lobbyists Michael Toscano, Mario Mairena, and Ben Gielow. The lobby group — which maintains an official partnership in Congress with Reps. Buck McKeon (R-CA), Henry Cuellar (D-TX), and dozens of other lawmakers — was the driving force behind the domestic drone decision passed last week. In the presentation obtained by Republic Report, there are several fascinating concerns raised by the lobbyists:
– Page 5: Drone lobbyists claimed access to airspace and “Global Conflict – particularly U.S. and allied nation involvement in future conflicts” will “either positively or negatively” influence “market growth” for the industry.
– Page 6: The drone lobbyists take full credit for authoring the expansion of domestic drone use codified in the FAA authorization bill passed last week, noting “the only changes made to the UAS section of the House FAA bill were made at the request of AUVSI. Our suggestions were often taken word-for-word.”
– Pages 10-12: The drone industry eagerly anticipates that civil drone use, including use of drones for “suspect tracking” by law enforcement, will soon eclipse military use of drones. Under a section called “Challenges facing UAS,” the lobbyists listed “Civil Liberties.”
I suppose if we had a more willing partner with Pakistan actually cleaning up its act and taking responsibiity in ending the Terrorist residency problem in their country the drone strikes would not be as many.
But what can we expect when the West’s public enemy #1, Bin Laden, was found 1 mile away from one of Pakistan’s most prestigious military academies hiding out. I don’t beleive the suggestion the ISI had no knowledge of this prior to the US raid there.
I don’t know what an acceptable alternative to the drone strike would be. A general airstrike is out of the question, sending in an assasination team would be very risky to US personnel and getting Pakistan to go in an get them is not likely to happen every time.
Let us not forget about the use of domestic drones in this country.
Domestic Drones
http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones
U.S. law enforcement is greatly expanding its use of domestic drones for surveillance. Routine aerial surveillance would profoundly change the character of public life in America. Rules must be put in place to ensure that we can enjoy the benefits of this new technology without bringing us closer to a “surveillance society” in which our every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the government. Drone manufacturers are also considering offering police the option of arming these remote-controlled aircraft with (nonlethal for now) weapons like rubber bullets, Tasers, and tear gas.
Congress has ordered the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to change airspace rules to make it much easier for police nationwide to use domestic drones, but the law does not include badly needed privacy protections. The ACLU recommends the following safeguards:
USAGE LIMITS: Drones should be deployed by law enforcement only with a warrant, in an emergency, or when there are specific and articulable grounds to believe that the drone will collect evidence relating to a specific criminal act.
DATA RETENTION: Images should be retained only when there is reasonable suspicion that they contain evidence of a crime or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or trial.
POLICY: Usage policy on domestic drones should be decided by the public’s representatives, not by police departments, and the policies should be clear, written, and open to the public.
ABUSE PREVENTION & ACCOUNTABILITY: Use of domestic drones should be subject to open audits and proper oversight to prevent misuse.
WEAPONS: Domestic drones should not be equipped with lethal or non-lethal weapons.
From the maker of drones….. One coming near you and the roadway you drive on….. Thank you Amerirussia…….
Why are we not calling this what it is? IT IS MURDER.
Even if we where in a declared war with Pakistan, this would be murder.
I never though I would see the day where the rule of law slowly slipped out of our grasp only to be replaced by the law of the jungle.
I am not particularly worried about using drones in a war zone. My problem is that there is a war zone in the first place.
Drone strikes in heavily populated areas are a real problem. I have less problem with targeting a high value target in a vehicle on a desert road.
As for accuracy, they have that down to about a meter or less with most ordnance; however, things can go wrong and the thing can miss. In WW-II, if a bomb crew flying at 30,000 feet could get their bomb load within six miles of a target, they were doing pretty good.
The real solution is to declare victory, turn security over to the local government and leave. They can have whatever kind of government they want and are willing to tolerate. A friend of mine is a psychiatrist, a Muslim and a really smart guy who was born and raised in the middle east. My daughter asked him one day why they cannot just sit down and talk out their problems. He told her that is not going to happen, because fighting among themselves is a way of life in that part of the world and has been going on for two or three thousand years. The US and its allies are not going to make them change in a single generation or two. He told her that change is going to have to come from within, and he is not hopeful about that. Staying there until, or through, 2014 is not going to make one whit of difference in the security picture. There will just be more dead and injured American troops.
Bring them home. Now. It is time. It is past time.
It really would be terrorizing to have a hell fire missile circling your neighborhood. I have had helicopters from time to time but they can’t cause instant death like these drones can. The constant noise produces a huge amount of fear.
Do unto others……..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28/hina-rabbani-khar-drones_n_1922637.html
Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistan Foreign Minister: Drones Are Top Cause Of Anti-Americanism by Joshua Hersh
“Asked why opinion polls consistently rank Pakistan among the most anti-American countries in the world, Khar responded with a single word: “Drones.”
Khar noted that the Pakistani government approves of their overall strategic purpose — to target and kill high-level militants — but the manner in which they have been used by the U.S., she said, has been “illegal” and has turned the local populations against the United States.
“What the drones are trying to achieve, we may not disagree. We do not disagree. If they’re going for terrorists, we do not disagree,” Khar said, according to the AFP. “But we have to find ways which are lawful, which are legal.””
I don’t think they are above using these drones in the U.S. for, among other things, spying on Americans:
(Huffington Post). Once these things are considered “normal” no telling what they will be used for.
The British bombed the Krauts by night and we bombed them by day. War criminals because surely there were rescuers on the ground picking up bodies after the previous bombing. So, once you bomb, wait a month, then its ok. Or, never bomb. Let Iran get the big one and drop it on Jersey.
Murder in the 21st Century … brought to you from Highway 61 productions.
Thanks for this post, Nal!
Amy Goodman talked about this study on C-Span this morning.
*****
Study Finds U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan Miss Militant Targets and “Terrorize” Civilians
(Democracy Now)
“A new report on the secret U.S. drone war in Pakistan says the attacks have killed far more civilians than acknowledged, traumatized a nation and undermined international law. In “Living Under Drones” researchers conclude the drone strikes “terrorize men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities.” The study concludes that most of the militants killed in the strikes have been low-level targets whose deaths have failed to make the United States any safer. Just 2 percent of drone attack victims are said to be top militant leaders. We’re joined by report authors: James Cavallaro, director of the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic at Stanford University; and Sarah Knuckey, professor at New York University School of Law and former advisor to the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions.”
Obama has fallen in love w/ drones. They really fit his aloof personality, literally and figuratively. I’m a realist. Drones are a very effective weapon when used prudently. However, I’m also practical. Drones do not afford us the opportunity to capture terrorists and gain valuable information on future operations. Finally, I find the abuse of these numerous drone attacks as cowardly.