How Many Civilians are Killed by US Drones?
Even if some have just learned of America’s escalating use of lethal force against suspected terrorists or militants a decade after the program began, any public interest and debate is welcomed. The passage from the New York Times that received the most attention describes that, according to the Obama administration’s methodology, there are inherently few civilian casualties as a result of the “signature strikes” against unnamed people:
It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.
This is not a new story. President Obama simply expanded on a policy initiated by his predecessor, but with more drones at his disposal (there were thirty-four drone combat air patrols [CAPs] when he came into office, now there are fifty-seven) and an even longer list of targets. As a former senior counterterrorism official remarked this weekend regarding signature strikes in Yemen, the “elasticity” of what the Obama administration considers a “direct threat” to the United States “has grown over time.” Another former senior official clarified, “There was a little liberalization that went on in the kill lists that allowed us to go after” Yemeni militants opposing the regime in Sana’a, rather than specifically the United States.
The use of signature drone strikes was first revealed in a February 22, 2008, New York Times article by Eric Schmitt and David Sanger. The journalists reported President Bush’s decision to authorize:
A significant relaxation of the rules under which American forces could aim attacks at suspected Qaeda and Taliban fighters…Instead of having to confirm the identity of a suspected militant leader before attacking, this shift allowed American operators to strike convoys of vehicles that bear the characteristics of Qaeda or Taliban leaders on the run, for instance, so long as the risk of civilian casualties is judged to be low.
Read more: http://www.hondurasweekly.com/how-many-civilians-are-killed-by-us-drones?-201206075256/
= new reply since forum marked as read
It somehow seems to transcend party lines and just "be". Reagan wanted an airport - done deal. BushCo wanted to avenge the attempt on Poppy's life - done. Obama? I just can't figure out what he's after. To his credit, he did mostly get us out of Iraq (mostly). Afghanistan was a clusterfuck he inherited and there isn't a good answer there other than to just say "fuck it" like the USSR did. Whatever is going on, there's one consistent factor now - oil. It has replaced "communism".
Prediction: Israel is going to bomb the fuck out of Iran and we'll have no choice but to back it up. Perhaps Congress will actually pass a declaration of war for the first time since WWII. The "War Powers Act" needs to be repealed. The Constitution clearly allocates the authority to declare war to Congress. Why the hell hasn't the USSC ruled it un-constitutional?
and if you don't like, we have a drone for your ass, too!
America! Fuck Yeah!
