Killings by armed, unmanned drones continue under Obama administration

[bigtree]

37 minutes ago

Suspected US missile strike kills 10 in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Missiles fired from a suspected U.S. spy plane killed 10 people Friday in Pakistan just east of the Afghan border, security officials said, the first such strike since the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

At least five of the dead were identified as foreign militants, an intelligence officer said.

The missile strike on the lawless region where al-Qaida militants are known to hide out is the latest in a barrage of more than 30 since the middle of last year.

One drone fired three missiles into the village of Zharki in North Waziristan, hitting two buildings over the space of 10 minutes, the security officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

At least 10 people were killed, they said. Their names were not released.

read: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD95SUIO00

[dmallind]

1. Why not?

Is there a difference between killing people with remote controlled aircraft as opposed to pilot-in-situ? Did Obama say anything to imply he was a pure pacifist who would never ever use military technology to kill people?

[bigtree]

3. Judging from the results, they're both being used recklessly

also, in view of the recorded killings of civilians across sovereign borders by unmanned drones . . .

As reported by CounterPunch's Jeffrey St. Clair, the Pentagon's top systems officer, Thomas Christie, who is employed in the Department of Defense's Operational Test and Evaluation division, accurately highlighted the Predator's weaknesses:

"The system's limitations have a substantial negative impact on the Predator's ability to conduct its missions...poor target location accuracy, ineffective communications, and limits imposed by relatively benign weather, including rain, negatively impact missions such as strike support, combat search and rescue, area search, and continuous coverage."

The Associated Press's Matt Kelley, added

"The plane's video, infrared and radar cameras can provide live images but aren't accurate enough to pinpoint targets. Pushed from the rear by a propeller, the Predator can fly only about 90 mph and is most effective at about 10,000 feet, within range of most anti-aircraft fire."

http://cursor.org/stories/dronesyndrome.htm

[Oregone]

6. I disagree with this evaluation based on evidence

They excel at accurately targeting funerals and weddings.

[dmallind]

26. As soon as we find a prefect way

to kill only militants with absolutely no civilian casualties and with perfect efficiency, exactly what then should we do? Did Obama claim to be a pacifist? Should he have?

[The Doctor.]

65. The intel is apparently shitty.

Given the choice between letting a bad guy get away and blowing up a family because the intel is less than accurate, I think the choice should be obvious.

Otherwise I agree that manned/unmanned is irrelevant.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. That citation is a bit old given the rate of change in UAVs and UCAVs

[Winterblues]

44. I seem to recall him saying he would work with the local government.

This sounds completely unilateral..:shrug:

[JackRiddler]

59. Three children?

Hey, they're just collateral right? Fuck'em.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. And, the "Change" is?

[bigtree]

4. well

hopefully this administration will respond to protests.

Hard to organize opposition through all of the sweetness and light, though.

[catgirl]

24. I thought you were gone already

Your statement- "Hard to organize opposition through all of the sweetness and light, though."- says it all.
I think you're on your own bigtree. You can organize a team of one. LOL.

[bigtree]

33. I oppose armed Predator drones making attacks on communities across soverign borders

. . . the kinds that have killed innocent civilians and are having the effect of fueling and fostering even more animosity and individuals inclined to violent expressions of resistance.

If you are implying that I meant to 'oppose' the new administration just for the sake of opposing them, then you're just wrong. I've pointed out many areas where I agree with this administration (and the President). For some folks, mere cheerleading will suffice. Good for them. For me, I want to see actual resolutions to these issues I've been fighting throughout the last eight years, not just lip service and paper. It shouldn't matter WHO is in the way of those solutions to make a stand . . . if you actually believe in something enough to fight for it.

[catgirl]

35. I oppose predator drones making attacks too...

You were brutal during the primaries and you've started in ALREADY on Obama. How long
has he been in office? Geez.

[bigtree]

36. most folks here could see that I made more of an effort to balance my opposition than most

For instance, in GDP, where we had a limited number of posts, I made a deliberate and consistent effort to spend at least one out of the three on an extensive feature post about the Obama campaign that day complete with his own words and positions. I don't have anything to apologize for the opposition I've made. I'm specific and I avoided demonizations. I may have been 'brutal', but I believe I was principled.

I really don't understand what you think the reaction should be to these MONTHS of transition moves and the forwarding of initiatives by the Obama team (and now administration) on the economy and other issues? Apparently you think we should just sit on our hands and cheer.

Just how many of these reports, like in this post, will survive the memory of the public when someone brings this to some sort of a decision? I really don't see the value in being so reticent about making a full-court press for what we believe in. That's the ONLY way you get action in our political system.

[catgirl]

38. your "sweetness and light" comment shows your opposition

and continued bashing of Obama supporters. We're certainly not going to sit on our hands, but
we're also going to give him time and space to correct things. There's a lot to deal with. It's easy
to nitpick.

On the other hand, this is the first I've seen since election day where a DUer brings up old primary
attack words. Clinton is the SOS. Can't we all be on the same side for a change?

[bigtree]

43. I'm only smacking at the ones who come onto my threads to poke me in the eye

I didn't ask for all of this questioning of my motives that's occurred on this thread, and, I'm not going to be some sitting target for yours or anyone's angst over what I see as legitimate criticisms of this administration.

I've chosen, for my entire political life, to organize alongside of Democrats. That should be enough, but some still demand some sort of false fealty based on their own comfort zone with the intention and direction of the new administration - until THEY have a complaint which they determine is vital and overbearing of all else. Spare me the loyalty plea. I'm as committed to progressive change behind our Democratic legislators and administration as anyone. It's ridiculous to try and portray me outside of my lifelong advocacy because I dare to oppose an action taken under President Obama's authority.

[catgirl]

45. Um, it was your 4th post

and your bitterness is all too evident. It's really too bad. It just blankets real
discussion.

On a positive note- Obama 's quick decision to banish torture and delve into
the whole mideast situation, should bring hope to many.

[bigtree]

49. I think the announcements helped with the first impressions of his administration

. . . but he will be ultimately judged by the actions and results of those under his authority and direction.

[Zhade]

63. I oppose them too.

NT!

[Raskolnik]

5. You're right. Unless *everything* is different in *every way* within the first 48 hours of Obama's

presidency, there isn't any change.

[bigtree]

12. Is there anything you care about enough to hold them accountable to?

Where is the policy announcement from the new administration on curtailing or ending these drone attacks, if there's some sort of opposition to them from the WH that I'm missing?

[kestrel91316]

17. You sound like one of those people who expects me to cure their

cat's serious illness or injury with one 15 minute office visit and a single injection, and when kitty isn't normal within 24 hours is calling to bitch.

GROW THE HELL UP. LIFE IS NOT A TV SHOW.

[bigtree]

27. Is there anything you can think of that you are willing to press this administration on?

Anything that you care about deeply enough to put down the pom-poms and fight for?

[Raskolnik]

23. Of course there is. And in the first 48+ hours of the Obama administration,

there has been some pretty damn good progress in those areas. No torture. Closing Gitmo. Lobbying restrictions.

Are you honest enough to recognize that there have been significant moves in the right direction made by this administration in the the last two days?

[bigtree]

30. of course. I've highlighted much of the progress in my posts.

Are you honest enough to acknowledge that there will certainly be significant, legitimate differences folks may hold against aspects within these broad policy pronouncements? Do you really believe our time is best spent during this one year 'review' of the Gitmo and other detention policies cheerleading the overall decision to review them? Or, do you believe that there should be significant debate and input to help the administration come to a just and acceptable soultion?

[Raskolnik]

32. I'm not the one seeing this in black and white.

There will be decisions of the Obama administration with which I disagree, but I'm not going to pretend that anyone who doesn't agree with me must not have the spine to challenge the administration on anything. That would be a very dishonest tact, and not conducive to a reasonable discussion.

[bigtree]

34. I didn't come onto any of your threads and accuse you of anything

This is a gang-up attack on my motives for posting a true article. There were Predator drone attacks under this administration which killed 10 people, only five of which someone identified as some argued legitimate target. That's a problem which this administration needs to sort out. I don't see the point in just ignoring it, whistling past it and hoping for the best in the future. I think we should highlight these issues and try and get the necessary support to end the practices and actions we find objectionable which are under this administration's control. That's just standard advocacy. I don't really know the point in having a discussion board which discourages that.

[catgirl]

41. Really? This one sounds like the one above

First Medical Marijuana Raid by DEA Under Obama Administration

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8132292

You're sounding bitter more than anything.

[bigtree]

48. the text of the article defended the Obama administration

by pointing out the Bush holdovers still in place and active, as well as outlining specifically where Mr. Obama expressed opposition to such raids. I posted it because I found that article after watching MSNBC's broadcast of medicinal pot growers in Mendocino (and had just finished looking through the real estate listings for Mendocino).

You are getting ridiculous in your complaints about my motives. I am bitter. Do you really expect everyone to be eternally sanguine about what has occurred politically and otherwise over the last term? Do you really suppose to represent that all of that is reversed and settled? What a comfortable perch you seem to reside on. Catbird seat?

[NeedleCast]

7. The Changes in 48 hours have been

- Closing the prison at Gitmo
- Further transperency in government
- Better lobbying laws

I don't understand why Obama hasn't waved the magic wand of peace and prosparity yet. Maybe there isn't one, despite what some people believe and expect.

[cali]

8. certain people have axes that need perpetual grinding.

[kestrel91316]

18. And this isn't the first time this OPer has drawn my attention

by complaining unnecessarily about Dems.

I have my suspicions about Mr. bigtree, personally.

[bigtree]

21. just what is it you suspect?

I'm listening.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. That you left your blinders and pom-poms at home.

[Raskolnik]

25. I would argue that the people wearing blinders are those that refuse to acknowledge

what has been done in in the 48+ hours of the administration thus far.

If you wanted us out of Afghanistan, I'm not sure why you're upset at this point; Obama made no secret of his policy plans regarding this area.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. I'm upset for the same reason I was upset with Bush killing people.

That Obama has done some good things doesn't relieve him of the responsibility of doing bad things. Nor does it relieve the citizenry of the responsibility of taking him to task for it.

[Raskolnik]

31. I believe we disagree about our role in and how to best manage our exit from Afghanistan

Which I can respect. But those open-ended "where is the change" posts are not intellectually honest.

[Zhade]

64. Well, hopefully we DON'T disagree that our killing children is WRONG.

NT!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. It seems like the "change" in Afghanistan will be 30000 more GI's shooting up the country.

But, of course, it will be "our guy" sending them rather than Bush, which makes it OK.

[deaniac21]

57. Hey, you get it!!!

[bigtree]

19. the thing that's overlooked amid the deserved praise for these initiatives

. . . is that there are important aspects within those decisions which can affect whatever result or outcome is desired.

Take Gitmo, for example. There will be issues surrounding the disposition of the prisoners and there will be a need to account for the rest of the prisoners around the world the CIA kidnapped and detained (most in Afghanistan jails). Those are the folks who the Bush administration wanted transferred to Gitmo but were stymied by Court decisions. If someone is still concerned enough to speak out on their behalf, against the new administration, that's going to trigger your Obama defense-response. But, that would be normal, necessary dissent.

We need more appreciation for the actual results and disposition of these decisions. Remember, on the bulk of the ones just made, the titles remind that they are just REVIEWS, not yet ultimate dispositions of Gitmo or any of the other detention issues. They should be discussed and debated fully, without the scolding from Democrats looking to hold their feathers in place in Pres. Obama's new cap.

[NeedleCast]

28. I generally agree

however there are several threads that seem to indicate dissatisfaction with Obama because he hasn't been able to transform the US and the entire world into a progressive paradise in the course of 72 hours.

The decisions have to be made before the effects can be seen, yes? It's in making the right decisions that allows the change to take place.

[Xenotime]

9. Change is as Commander in Chief, calling your generals and saying....

Stop bombing and killing other countries.

[Pavulon]

70. Sorry, not going to happen

American presidents serve the interest of the American people. If the call is made to escalate in Afghanistan, which was promised during the campaign, dont act surprised.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

13. Hey Nader, Isn't It About Time For Your Pill?

[Radical Activist]

97. I know I expected a complete transformation of the military in less than a week.

Didn't everyone else? That's very reasonable.
:eyes:

[Zywiec]

11. Wouldn't it be awesome if they got Osama Bin Laden

and it didn't happen on Bush's watch?

I think George would choke on a another pretzel if he heard that news.

[Still Sensible]

14. That is the goal

and I'm pretty confident it will happen

[bigtree]

15. that's apparently the folly of the decision to continue using them

Most folks in the region say the attacks are just creating new 'bin-Ladens', though.

[Bucky]

16. If it was that easy to get him, it would've happened by now

The problem (well, one problem) with the Bushies is that they kept on expecting results in fields where they weren't willing to commit any resources. It will take some time for the US to divert the resources needed to capture or kill bin Laden (unless our troops get really really lucky).

But yes, the sooner he's out of action, the better off the world will be.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

81. Bin Laden has been dead for years. When interviewed by David Frost Benazir Bhutto spilled the beans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

[stray cat]

20. I don't have a problem with missles fired responsibly

[bigtree]

37. they just need some tweaking?

[underpants]

40. He stung them did he?

That is a message.

[DainBramaged]

42. Yup, it's Obama's fault....................

:eyes:

[Statistical]

46. replied to wrong post (n/t)

[bigtree]

51. it's his responsibility

[Name removed]

54. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

47. Would it better if they were destroyed by a piloted aircraft? At higher cost?

Why the focus on UAV? Would it be better is a manned high performance aircraft which cost 100x a much as has operating cost of 20x a much did the killing?

Would it be better because we paid more.
IF (and it is a big IF) Obama cuts military spending expect UAV use to RISE not fall.

UAV are far more cost effective especially in the type of combat we are involved in cmompared to High Performance Aircraft.

1 MQ-1 system (which consist of 4 Predator aircraft, ground control stations, and Predator Primary Satellite Link): $30.5 Million
1 MQ-9 system (which consist of 4 Reaper aircraft, ground control stations, and Predator Primary Satellite Link): $64 Million

The MQ-9 is an upgraded Predator originally called the Predator B but now classified as the "Reaper". It has roughly triple the speed and able to fly twice as high (50,000 feet). It also is more heavily armed (14 Hellfire missiles vs 2 on Predator) or it can carry 2 500lb bombs.

Often when the news says a "Predator" drone attacked xyz it is actually a Reaper. The predator original was designed for recon. It was armed as an experiment and since it worked the heavier more capable Reaper was created. Given the Reaper is much more capable the Predator is more being transitioned back to a reconnaissance platform that only engages time sensitive high value targets. The Reaper is the true attack platform. Still the news will often confuse the two.

Now compare those prices to modern fighters:
1 F-22 Raptor: $137 Million ($540 Million for 4)
1 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: $83 Million ($332 Million for 4)
1 F-15E Strike Eagle: $32 Million ($126 Million for 4)

UAV are substantially cheaper. Any cut in DOD funding will likely require a much larger UAV program

[bigtree]

50. many objections besides accuracy or effectiveness

There is a disconnect from the horrors of war that our countryfolk have become comfortable with as our leaders and others who promote and prosecute the violence separate us from the bloody realities of the mindless destructive power of our weaponry, and the dangerous contradictions that undermine the premise of our military interventions. Apart from the dehumanizing of the targets of our aggression with the taunts, the name-calling, and the pistol-packing cowboy 'dead or alive' rhetoric thrown out like red meat to the cowed masses, Bush and his cabal were content to ignore the humanity of the inhabitants of whatever lands they choose as the whipping post for their contrived retribution.

The drones were originally intended for use in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. The change in designation from an intelligence tool to an offensive one occurred in 2002 with the addition of the armed reconnaissance role.

CIA's Tenet approved the use of the armed drones right after the 9-11 attacks. In fact, targeting of bin-Laden by the CIA using the drones was approved by President Clinton. But, even Tenet resisted the call to use the drones to carry out attacks. He thought the authority to wage armed aggression was the job of the military, not the CIA. Nonetheless, there were security insiders, like our hero Richard Clarke (who wrote in a memo to Rice criticizing the Tenet for impeding the deployment of unmanned Predator drones to hunt for bin Laden).

According to the Washington Post, the memo urged “officials to imagine a day when hundreds of Americans lay dead from a terrorist attack and ask themselves what more they could have done.”

Who wouldn't get behind the prospect of striking down the nation's #1 enemy with a precision-guided tool operated from a safe distance, without the mess of dead U.S. servicefolks to muck up the approval of a shellshocked public? And what of those innocents who happen to be in the way of our missiles? Well, 'they're with us, or against us'.

Earlier on in the past administration, we witnessed a brutal attack on a village in Pakistan by U.S. airstrikes which killed as many as 18 residents there as Bush claimed to have 'intelligence' that bin-Laden's deputy was having dinner in one of the homes bombed. The attacks were carried out by predator drones.

"As many as eighteen persons have been killed and six fatally injured due to bombardment by the allied aircraft from Afghanistan."

The bombardment by the Allied forces, fell on Damadola Burkanday area of tehsil Mamoon in Bajaur agency at 3:00 am PST, completely flattening the homes of BakhtPur, Muhammad Rahim and Bacha Khan.

According to local eyewitnesses, fourteen members of BakhtPur family along with four others died, due to indiscriminate bombing. The dead included eight children, and four females. The dead included, 9-year old Nadia Bibi, 10-year old Sadiqa, 9-year old Tayyeb, 7 year old Zahid ullah, 5-year old Hussain Nawaz. Others included 20-year-old Ameer Muhammad, 25-year-old Nazir Muhammad, 50-year Noor Pari, 40-year old Shahi Badan, 30-year-old Qari Saeed, 30-year-old Tahira Bibi, and others. Some of the dead were unidentified.

The locals reported that the allied warplanes violated the Pakistani airspace from Afghanistan territory by 19 kilometers and targeted the said homes. The resultant explosions rocked the area far and wide, shattering windows. The Bajur attack happened few days after Pakistan lodged protest with U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan about firing in the North Waziristan tribal area on Saturday night that had killed eight people.

The attacks were directed by the CIA, or some shadowy branch of Rumsfeld's secret military. The Pentagon, however, immediately denied knowledge of airstrikes. No accountability, no fingerprints, just a mindless drone.

Air Force officials in the Bush administration announced plans to expand their force of Predators to 15 squadrons from the existing three, while at the same time developing a “hunter-killer” version of the aircraft. The Air Force proposed spending about $825 million to purchase 74 Predators over six years, augmenting the 68 in service.

“Unmanned systems allow us to maintain our technological advantage and engage in high threat, non-permissive environments, while honoring the value of life we hold so dear,” Glenn Lamartin, the Pentagon’s director of defense systems, told lawmakers. He means American lives, of course. All others be damned, 'with us, or against us'.

According to John Lumpkin, "CIA Sent Drone to Save Rebel Leader," Associated Press :

"So far, there are four reported cases exist of the Predator-Hellfire combination being used. Two of these attacks resulted in the deaths of at least 13 innocent civilians. On February 4, 2002, a Predator Hellfire missile killed three Afghans scavenging for metal in the hills around Zhawar Kili, Paktia. On May 6,, 2002, a Predator fired a Lockheed missile at a convoy of cars in Kunar province, seeking to assassinate Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, but succeeded only in destroying a madrassah and killing at least 10 nearby civilians. On October 26,, 2001, the CIA sent a missile-armed Predator drone from Pakistan to protect Afghan opposition leader Abdul Haq, who at the time was being tracked by the Taliban. That mission failed.

One reported 'success' of the Predator-Hellfire was the Wednesday, November 14, 2001, night attack upon a three-story hotel building south of Kabul, where fleeing Al Qaeda and Taliban had gathered and parked their SUVs. Predator imagery was used to call in F/A-18 jets, which bombed the building, reportedly killing a senior lieutenant of bin Laden, the Egyptian Mohammed Atef as well as others. As the survivors scattered Hellfire missiles struck fleeing vehicles."

So now, with the advancement of these offensive weapons, operated like video games from the safety of some stateside base, agents of our government, under the cover of blanket authorizations to fight terrorists which stretch back to the Clinton administration and are exploited by the (expired) traitorous regime in the White House, American citizens are being offered the opportunity to further detach themselves from the collateral killings that occur in their name. There need not be rows of caskets draped with American flags anymore containing brave soldiers and airmen who are sacrificed in the name of whatever meddling ambition the president embarks on.

Yet, most Americans won't see the hasty graves of the victims abroad of the assaults of our predator drones, graves dug out of the hard ground which inhabitants endeavor to call their own. And, as they turn against us because of our aggression and support those in their own region who stand against the imposition of our false authority, they become the enemies supporters of this militarism will use to justify the continuation of this perpetual 'war'.

The more we are detached from the instruments of our aggression, the more we become desensitized to the destruction. We are no less responsible for the prosecution of these continuing military aggressions than Bush was by the insulation of his authority and false mandate.

These remote-controlled weapons just give us the illusion of clean hands. We are the merchants of their misdeeds, however. The employment of these air assaults, manned and unmanned, insulate the U.S. from the sacrifices of American life and limb that might otherwise restrain our citizen's support for domineering military aggression.

The random exercise of our military strength and destructive power will not serve as a deterrent to these rouge, radical terrorist organizations who claim no permanent base of operations. The wanton, collateral bombing and killing has undoubtedly alienated any fringe of moderates who might have joined in a unified effort of regime change which respects our own democratic values of justice and due process. It is immoral to support the genocide of a people that our own leaders would, if given free reign, commit to slaughter at the whim of their supposedly clean hands, in the name of liberation and justice. Does our morality manifest itself in our ambitions or in our actions?

[Pavulon]

71. Sorry we dont use sharpened rocks, and spears.

I do not see the difference in trauma caused by exploding warheads and trauma caused by an aimed rifle shot. Life is precious and expensive, ammo is cheap. Why risk infantry, which kill as many innocents with their tactics when a better method is available?

Make no mistake, people know what they are doing. At the end of the day dead is dead. Split a head with club or rifle round. The effect is the same.

Gun camera footage makes it abundantly clear what is happening to those on the receiving end of cannon fire or guided weapons.

[bigtree]

74. most of these air attacks are crap-shoots and the effects have been counterproductive

. . . because of the collateral killings. There are political consequences for killing tribal leaders at the same time we're supposedly looking for Pakistanis to align with us against the militarized elements bent on violence against our troops or our allies.

I'm not going to accept the notion that the 'people know what they are doing' who orchestrated this.

[Pavulon]

75. People know they are killing people

you dont have to smash someones head with a rock or choke them to understand you are taking life.

Pulling a lanyard on a 155mm piece has clear consequences for the people that shell is landing on.

If this is effective in CI warfare is another point.

[bigtree]

52. White House no comment on suspect Pakistan strikes

54 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The White House Friday refused to comment on Pakistani reports that suspected US drones had fired missiles into presumed militant dens in the northwest tribal belt.

"As you know I am not going to comment on those matters," spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters despite being repeatedly pressed to discuss the reports.

Pakistani security officials said the missiles fired onto presumed militant dens killed 15 people, including three children and at least four civilians.

The strikes, which pulverised two houses in the northwest tribal belt, were reportedly the first since US President Barack Obama took office and one day after he appointed a brand new special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5isVltiFlTBANXFp5UJbaAa9jVC7g

[bigtree]

53. ABC: Obama to CIA: Bombs Away! No Let Up in US Drone Attacks

New President Approves Continued Attacks That Have Killed 8 of al Qaeda's Top 20

January 23, 2009

The CIA's bombing campaign against al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan continued with two more attacks today, an indication, senior officials say, that President Barack Obama has approved the U.S. strategy that has killed at least eight of al Qaeda's top 20 leaders since July 2008.

The two attacks today in Pakistan's were the first since President Obama took office on Tuesday.

Asked about it at his daily press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "I'm not going to discuss that matter."

During the campaign, Obama called for cross-border attacks against high-value al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, even before the CIA campaign began.

Pakistani officials and villagers told ABCNews.com that 17 people were killed in two successive strikes against compounds in North and South Waziristan.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6718124&page=1

[malaise]

55. The killing of innocent civilians must cease

I don't care who's in charge.

[EstimatedProphet]

56. And he hasn't turned around the economy yet! HE LIED TO US!

He's been in office THREE WHOLE DAYS and the country is still a mess!

[bigtree]

60. Maddow reported he was briefed on attacks

. . . that's not a start-up problem, it's a policy problem.

[Jack_DeLeon]

58. I hope Obama continues the good work.

[bigtree]

61. killing 15 people, including three children

heckofajob

[Zhade]

62. This has to stop. We've killed innocents before.

STOP THE KILLING ALREADY

[EFerrari]

66. I wonder what the objective is here.

What's the value? It can't only be militants they manage to get, if any. Is it maintaining a visible presence as deterent? I don't understand this.

[bigtree]

67. it looks like carrot/stick

. . .if you believe the WaPo article today which says the president was 'briefed' on the attack. They surmise that the Obama administration is trying to force Pakistan to act by making it clear that we will attack if they don't.

I really don't believe in this strategy, if it's true. The individuals we killed look to be a mix of civilians and some tribal leadership who may or may not have ties to al-Qaeda. The paper says they're 'militants.' If we are going to influence a significant number of Pakistanis to resist these combatant groups, I don't think that picking off tribal leaders from the air is the way to go. It looks as counterproductive as the rest of the militarism we've endured for eight years.

[EFerrari]

85. It seems much more likely to me that the new administration was faced with

an already scheduled event and decided to lay back until it could gather the information it needs to made a decision. Transition isn't really over, is it?

[bigtree]

90. I guess we'd have to interpret the report that Obama was 'briefed'

. . . as ass-covering. Better to look like he knew, than not. I too, suspect that this was orchestrated by some Bush remnant.

[bigtree]

68. Angry Afghan villagers say raid left 22 civilians dead

January 24, 2009

Reporting from Kabul and Islamabad —

A statement by the U.S. military said the early-morning strike targeted a Taliban commander "known to traffic foreign fighters and weapons into the region." As coalition troops approached his compound, they came under fire from "multiple directions" by militants armed with AK-47 assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, the statement said.

Village elders, though, told provincial officials there were no Taliban in the area, which they described as a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds. Women and children were among the 22 dead, they said, according to Hamididan Abdul Rahmzai, the head of the provincial council.

Rahmzai said the villagers made a perilous predawn journey to his office to give their testimony. It is generally difficult to obtain independent confirmation of such reports because of inaccessible location, poor roads and the danger of insurgent attacks.


The dramatically conflicting accounts of the raid by villagers and the military were reminiscent of an August strike in the village of Azizabad in the western province of Herat, which caused an international outcry.

Local authorities, supported by the United Nations, said 90 civilians were killed, most of them women and children. U.S. military officials at first said only militants had been killed in the raid, then acknowledged five civilian deaths.

Later, a high-level American investigation — conducted after video emerged that appeared to corroborate villagers' claims that a number of women and children had died — concluded that 33 civilians had been killed.


read: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-afghan-civilians25-2009jan25,0,7888542.story

[Pavulon]

69. Did they kill the targeted people

that is the issue. If there were armed people fighting along with women and children they are responsible for killing them.

They might as well just shoot them themselves when they make that decision.

The big picture, it this effective ci strategy is also worth asking.

[bigtree]

72. the Geneva convention says otherwise

Under the protocol, even if there is shielding going on there still has to be some sort of imminent danger harm from the target. That fact doesn't release the U.S. from responsibility for the civilians, especially if they knew they were there.

[Pavulon]

73. Reasonable measures

can be taken but if they play war and bring the wife and kids they are responsible. I am sure someone could work on a real case but in execution that is the way it is.

If they run and gun into a house and we bomb it, there is no way to know who is in there.

Just so you know every one who deploys there knows they will not be captured. They will put a bullet in their own head so they dont show up on liveleak having their head sawed off.

[bigtree]

76. these are attacks across sovereign borders

. . . cleverly devised schemes employing the latest technology.

Smart weapons.

Dumb policy.

[Pavulon]

79. Pakistan should be killing them

they want to play war and run to Pakistan for safe harbor. That is not a sustainable policy.

[muriel_volestrangler]

77. What does "run and gun into a house" mean?

If you're trying to claim these people were in the middle of a firefight with someone, and then retreated into a house with civilians in it, then you need to show your evidence. As far as I can tell from multiple reports, these were attempted assassinations by the US, which killed innocent people (including children) too. All too similar to what the Israelis do when they try to kill Hamas leaders.

[Pavulon]

78. Yep, we kill people

If I ran a war I would not be hanging out with the wife and kids. That's why we deploy to combat without bringing families. In a ground support role the rules are different.

At the end of the day someone sits down and figures out how the risk of civilian casualties stacks up to the value of killing that target.

Thats the reality of it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. Even if they are pro-government people, we kill them and their families

The second attack was aimed at the house of a Taleban commander about 10km (six miles) from the town of Wanna, local reports said.

But officials told the BBC that the drone actually hit the house of a pro-government tribal leader, killing him and four members of his family, including a five-year-old child.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7847423.stm

[Pavulon]

82. And during wars, we kill the wrong people

we can either fight a war and deal with the consequences of that or go home. I am sure our policy there involves more than just droning people to death.

[excess_3]

91. do you have a link, describing your claims about the GC?

you just make this stuff up

[bigtree]

92. ohh! snarky. You really need me to spell out the provisions of the Geneva Convention for you?

Protocol 1

Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION
Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities

Chapter I: Basic Rule and Field of Application

Article 48: Basic Rule

1. In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.


Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

Article 52: General Protection of Civilian Objects

1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.


Article 54: Protection of Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Civilian Population

2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.


Chapter IV: Precautionary Measures
Article 57: Precautions in Attack

1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:

1. those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:

1. do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;

2. take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;

3. refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

2. an attack shall be canceled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

3. effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not pemmit.

3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.

4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects

5. No provision of this article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects.

full list of provisions: http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm

[excess_3]

94. which/what there was violated? n/t

[bigtree]

95. well, there should be an investigation to see where, if anywhere, the U.S. complied with the law

. . . especially since there are claims that non-combatants were involved.

The one provision which responds to the poster that I originally cited the Geneva Convention protocol to in my response is the one which states that just because the 'targets' MAY be using civilians to shield themselves from attack, that violation of the Geneva Convention does not release the attacker from responsibility to protect civilians in the manner proscribed under the law.


from Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population: http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7.The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

[excess_3]

96. 51.6, 51.7, 51.8, or something else? n/t

[bigtree]

99. the reference to the Geneva Convention in my post was specific

. . . to the assertion by the poster that civilians MAY have been used as a shield.

Where the U.S. may have violated the Geneva Convention protocol in this attack depends on the facts which emerge in the investigation. Much of that depends on whether the U.S. knew, in advance of the attacks, that civilians were present.

The rest would depend on whether there was a legitimate military target and that it wasn't an indiscriminate attack and excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated, as described under Article 51:5:

1. an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

2. an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.



There should also be a determination whether the U.S. took the necessary precautions to protect the civilians, as described under Article 57 Precautions in Attack.

read the entire protocol: http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm

And, remember, this is also about the efficacy of such attacks as it is the legality or even the morality. Pakistan isn't part of any 'war zone'. These are attacks across their sovereign borders. That makes these questions even more prescient and important. As said, they won't be adequately answered without an investigation which both countries claim they're conducting. It wouldn't be the first time the U.S. has backpedaled from claims of 'militants' among the civilians they've killed inside of Pakistan with similar attacks.

[G_j]

83. that is so wrong!

you need to study the Geneva Conventions (as Bigtree points out) as a a start.

Of course there is always the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzales.....approach: Geneva Conventions be damned!

[Pavulon]

84. This is a war, not tag football

civilians WILL DIE if we conduct this action. This is a commonality through history. I respect the position that we should have no war, pacifism is a great thing. However for those who voted for Obama the path he was taking was made clear. Very clear.

[bigtree]

89. this isn't war

It's a desperate effort to stave off the aftereffects of Bush's military expansionism. If it is war, then we clearly are the aggressor and need to reform our actions. If it's some attempt to protect and defend American interests or security, it's been demonstrated and concluded time and time again how counterproductive all of these cross-border reprisals are to those goals and others.

And, I resent the notion that my vote was license or permission for the Obama administration to conduct this type of militarism abroad with impunity.

[ZombieHorde]

86. The killing of innocents is only unacceptable when Bush does it.

What actually happens does not matter, the only thing which matters is who is doing it.

[Balbus]

87. That seems to be the consensus.

[Thothmes]

93. Right now Obama is doing it.

[lib2DaBone]

88. Obama.. This is your Mother.. STOP IT!!!

[KakistocracyHater]

98. Pakistan threatens to become the Iraq of the 2010s

A Q Khan was selling nuke crap to the highest bidder under the watchful eyes of Bush & Cheney. Plus our private & thus obsessed-money-making weapons dealers DID sort of recently sell Pakistan some of their finest hardware(deathware?)

I hope Obama doesn't allow those who LOVE that 'in god we trust' leaf lettuce to cajole U.S. into an unnecessary tangle/trap in Pakistan.

There ARE better ways of dealing with that, & since we learned that only 7% of the time is the rate of victory when using miliatry force.

...."Here is the Rand Corporation study on terrorism:"...."The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006, drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The most common way that terrorist groups end -- 43 percent -- was via a transition to the political process.".....

..."The second most common way that terrorist groups end -- 40 percent -- was through police and intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups. Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information, Jones said"...

..."Military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases examined; in most instances, military force is too blunt an instrument to be successful against terrorist groups, although it can be useful for quelling insurgencies in which the terrorist groups are large, well-armed and well-organized, according to researchers"...

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/07/29/index.html