US Plans Manned ‘Drones’ to Avoid Legal Ramifications

[tekisui]

Source: Des Pardes

NEW YORK: The faceless, nameless, war on terror may soon see manned drones hunting the bad guys down in the lawless tribal lands of northwestern Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.

Up till now unmanned drone strikes along the Pak-Afghan border have taken out many Al Qaeda big wigs, but at a very high bad-guys-to-good-guys casualty ratio.

According to published reports, there have been several hundred civilian deaths while only a few al Qaeda big names have been successfully killed. The latest hit was the third in al Qaeda leadership – Al Misri, but his killing involved more than a dozen deaths which could have been avoided, critics say.

The United States administration maintains it is not breaking any US or international law nor rules of engagement in war. War on terror critics, particularly, critics of use of Drones, say the opposite.

A recent UN expert report on drone strikes alluded to their use as a plausible “war crime”, a contravention of the Geneva Convention, and akin to “target killing” – an act being carried out with total impunity. The Washington administration have not commented on the report so far.

Some observers say, it is no surprise that the United States is now increasingly relying on a new, manned spy plane to deal with possible legal ramifications of the indiscriminate use of unmanned drones in the war against militants. The US media reported the news first on Sunday.

(snip)

Meanwhile, the Pentagon’s technical response to this legal problem is the introduction of a manned aircraft known as the MC-12 Liberty. It is a four-person, twin-engine propeller plane based on a civilian aircraft used around the world.

Drones are operated by the CIA and critics say that intelligence agencies do not observe the legal code that apply to uniformed soldiers. The new plane is operated by US Air Force personnel who follow a legal code, which includes international obligations observed during an armed conflict.

more: http://despardes.com/?p=16670

____________________________________

Manned Drones? When do we just admit that we are at war in Pakistan?

[Solly Mack]

1. k/r

[markbark]

2. Gee, I must not know the nomenclature anymore

I thought a "manned drone" was called a "fighter jet" or perhaps "close air support"

[tekisui]

4. Don't you just love Penta-talk?

[Eric J in MN]

6. More of a bomber jet than a fighter jet.

Fighter jets are for attacking other planes.

Bomber jets are for attacking people on the ground.

[GreenStormCloud]

8. It isn't even a jet, it is a twin engine propeller plane. N/T

[Eric J in MN]

11. OK, thanks for telling me. NT

NT

[Sinistrous]

12. Also, by definition, not a drone.

And, any plans to arm the C-12 are very iffy, from what I can read. Does anybody have a good cite for the arming of this reconnaissance plane?

[GreenStormCloud]

14. From what I read it appears to be strictly a recon plane.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/mc-12-liberty.htm

That article was horrible reporting. They were trying to stir up excitement about the Air Force getting a few manned recon planes.

[jp11]

3. Ninja edit, ok now it is legal.

[Echo In Light]

5. K/R

[GreenStormCloud]

7. What is the difference if the weapons operator and pilot are in the plane...

...or in a control room thousands of miles away? In both cases they are looking at sensor monitors and computer displays that are miles above the ground.

[FarCenter]

10. You don't need a pilot or weapons operator on the plane -- just a token human

Spam in a can -- just like the astronauts.

[FBI_Un_Sub]

13. Sounds like

a concoction of some "NPQ" Air Force JAG schemer and dreamer.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. Don't even need that. There is nothing that requires planes to be manned. N/T

[Soylent Brice]

9. K&R

[bobthedrummer]

15. knr