Time to ask questions about the US drone program (US using terrorist tactics against Pakistanis)
Regarding U.S. drones
Congress and the courts need to take a harder look at the moral and legal issues around the program.
February 7, 2012
When the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism released a report Sunday claiming that U.S. drone strikes have killed dozens of civilian rescuers and mourners in Pakistan, the American media scarcely noticed. Similarly, while other countries hotly debate America's covert program of targeted assassination, its legality has never been considered by a U.S. court and is seldom discussed by Congress, which has ceded extraordinary authority over the drone program to the president and the .
That silence could well come back to haunt this country.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism's findings are worth a look — not because they're an ironclad assertion of facts on the ground in Pakistan's tribal areas, where solid information is hard to come by, but because of the questions they raise about the drone program. The three-month investigation turned up evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed when they tried to rescue people injured in a drone attack, only to be hit with another round of missiles. If this is true, it's a tactic that seems borrowed from the playbook of Islamist terrorists, who have been known to set off bombs in crowded areas, wait for rescuers to arrive and then explode more bombs to maximize the carnage.
Eyewitness accounts in such places as the tribal areas must be regarded with great skepticism; playing up alleged U.S. atrocities is a common recruiting strategy for terrorist groups. But claims of secondary drone strikes are so frequent that they call for further investigation. Meanwhile, Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick, in his recent book, "The Triple Agent," describes a 2009 drone attack at the funeral of a Taliban operative that was aimed at a senior commander; he escaped, but dozens of civilians, including children, were reportedly killed in the strike. Are funerals appropriate targets, even when they provide an opportunity to lure dangerous terrorists out of hiding?
That's the kind of question we'd like to hear asked more often, by Congress and the courts. The drone program is so secretive that until last week it was not officially acknowledged to exist; President Obama changed that in an online appearance in which he insisted that drone attacks "have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties."
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-drones-20120207,0,6328376.story
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)anti-war movement? It has been known for a long time that those WMD have been killing civilians, and many, many children for a long time.
I have read heart-breaking accounts of families whose loved ones have been killed by these weapons. And the US media once again, fails to do its job by reporting on what is known about the tragic consequences of these weapons.
Eg, in Pakistan, people have been peacefully demonstrating against their use for several years now, carrying photos of the victims and demanding that THEIR government stop the killing of their civilians. Some have filed lawsuits against the US for the loss of a family member.
And when the program was halted recently because of the mass killing of Pakistani troops, a comment was made which was attributed to a member of the State Dept. S/he said, applauding the decision 'we cannot kill our way out of this'. Someone in our government apparently thinks we CAN kill our way out of everything. And it is shameful that no one is speaking out about it.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)But those who merely thought they agreed with it have been drawn away by the defacto head of their own party.
julian09
(1,435 posts)We wouldn't need the drones, if we had cooperation from pakistan military. Where is all the fighting, but pakistani border and pakistan
enemy camps. If we know about them, why don't they. How many of their citizens have been killed by terrorists, because they give taliban and Alquaida santuary.
GeorgeGist
(25,319 posts)is beyond belief.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)extremely cooperative. I have posted articles on that several times in the past, btw, and am not about to go searching again right now. And do you know how many Pakistani soldiers have died fighting OUR war? This is not THEIR war, yet, they have risked the anger of their own people to allow the US to wage OUR war using their troops and their territory to do so. Your comment demonstrates a total lack of knowledge of this topic.
julian09
(1,435 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of innocent Pakistani civilians we have killed in gratitude for all the help they have given us.
Just a few weeks ago the US killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and finally Pakistan had had enough. After nearly ten years, they threatened that the US could no longer use their country to get supplies to Afghanistan. I wish they had done that long ago, it might have ended this madness a lot sooner.
What makes you think that if someone kills Americans we have the right to go crazy all over the world killing people wherever we choose? But if WE kill THEIR citizens, they should just shut up and take it? AND they should damn well let us do whatever we want in their country?
Let me ask you a question. Do you think a mother in Pakistan whose child has been blown to bits by one of our drones feels less pain than an American mother might under the same circumstances?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)or Breivik being "inspired" by the Islamists
constructions like that just reinforce the broader hegemony of "our enemy du jour is the epitome of villainy, so bad that they turn us into them!"
