Switch Theme:

U.S. Admits Drones Killed 4 Americans  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






 Easy E wrote:
However, since the person killed was a 'bad" man we can overlook it right?


My god, the strawman...it is so beautiful...so large...and so full of excrement. Truly a wonder to behold.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22653476

The lawyer leading a UN drone inquiry has praised a speech by US President Barack Obama as a "significant step towards increased transparency".

Ben Emmerson said Mr Obama had set out more clearly than ever before the legal justifications for targeted killing.

Pakistan, the main focus of the strikes, has reiterated its view that drones are "counter-productive".

Mr Obama pledged to continue strikes, but with tighter oversight of the programme and stricter targeting rules.

Mr Emmerson, a United Nations human rights special rapporteur, launched an inquiry into drones in January, saying their use "represents a real challenge to the framework of international law".

The inquiry is examining 25 attacks, in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, the Palestinian territories and Somalia.

He said in a statement that Mr Obama's speech had broken new ground on a number of issues.

"It sets out more clearly and more authoritatively than ever before the administration's legal justifications for targeted killing, and the constraints that it operates under," he said.

"The publication of the procedural guidelines for the use of force in counter-terrorism operations is a significant step towards increased transparency and accountability."

The Pakistani foreign ministry said it appreciated that Mr Obama had acknowledged "force alone cannot make us safe" and welcomed his resolve to rebuild ties between the nations.

But the ministry added: "The government of Pakistan has consistently maintained that the drone strikes are counter-productive, entail loss of innocent civilian lives, have human rights and humanitarian implications and violate the principles of national sovereignty."

A senior official from Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League has told the BBC the party is disappointed that President Obama gave no indication he would consult the Pakistan government about the continued use of drone attacks.

He said the question of the Americans bombing Pakistani territory without permission is the biggest foreign policy issue facing the new administration, which is preparing to take power after its recent election win.

The issue is hugely controversial in Pakistan, where parts of the government and military are often accused of ignoring or even condoning some of the drone strikes.

According to several estimates, US strikes in Pakistan hit a peak in 2010 when more than 100 drone attacks were reported.

Last year, the number was thought to be fewer than 50.

Mr Emmerson said after a trip to Pakistan in March that Pakistan "does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity".

However, correspondents say the US could not launch drone strikes without tacit support from Pakistan.

Mr Obama spelled out his new policy on drones as part of a wider speech on counter-terrorism.

"America does not take strikes to punish individuals, we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people," he said.

And he added that the strikes were permissible only "when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat" and there must be "near certainty" that no civilians would be killed.

His speech coincided with the signing of new "presidential policy guidance" on the use of drone strikes.

The policy document curtails the circumstances in which drones can be used in places that are not overt war zones, such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

The use of unmanned drones in foreign countries has been overwhelmingly backed in US opinion polls.

However, the same polls reveal that few support the use of drones on US territory.


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

Are the bars supposed to represent the numbers killed, or just the amount of drones flying around doing anything?

Because that graph doesn't make a lot of sense if the heights of the bars is supposed to correspond to the numbers below it.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 d-usa wrote:
Are the bars supposed to represent the numbers killed, or just the amount of drones flying around doing anything?

Because that graph doesn't make a lot of sense if the heights of the bars is supposed to correspond to the numbers below it.

Looks like the bar's height is the # of drone missions.

But, the graph is disengenuous a bit because armed drones weren't really deployed much until the Obama administration...right?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/24 15:42:50


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Are the bars supposed to represent the numbers killed, or just the amount of drones flying around doing anything?

Because that graph doesn't make a lot of sense if the heights of the bars is supposed to correspond to the numbers below it.

Looks like the bar's height is the # of drone missions.

But, the graph is disengenuous a bit because armed drones weren't really deployed much until the Obama administration...right?


They haven't been used too much until the Obama years, drone technology has come a long way over the last 10 years.

But just because you have a new toy doesn't mean you have to use it to drop bombs left and right.

Of course my beef isn't really with drones. It's with drones dropping bombs on US citizens.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

 d-usa wrote:
Are the bars supposed to represent the numbers killed, or just the amount of drones flying around doing anything?

Because that graph doesn't make a lot of sense if the heights of the bars is supposed to correspond to the numbers below it.


Number of strikes and underneath number killed per year in those strikes.

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 CptJake wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Are the bars supposed to represent the numbers killed, or just the amount of drones flying around doing anything?

Because that graph doesn't make a lot of sense if the heights of the bars is supposed to correspond to the numbers below it.


Number of strikes and underneath number killed per year in those strikes.


Gotcha, thanks.
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






 d-usa wrote:
Are the bars supposed to represent the numbers killed, or just the amount of drones flying around doing anything?

Because that graph doesn't make a lot of sense if the heights of the bars is supposed to correspond to the numbers below it.

Reading the key the bars on the graph represent the number of drone strikes, and the number underneath show the number killed, and the year

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/24 15:51:20


 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

 Ahtman wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
However, since the person killed was a 'bad" man we can overlook it right?


My god, the strawman...it is so beautiful...so large...and so full of excrement. Truly a wonder to behold.


Strawman? I think that is on the list of things in the Constitution that we can legally kill with a drone.

Can someone explain to me the difference between an assassination and a targetted killing? I'm actual curious. Since Executive branch authorizaed Assassinations are illegal, I am genuinely curious what the difference is.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
Hangin' with Gork & Mork






 Easy E wrote:
 Ahtman wrote:
 Easy E wrote:
However, since the person killed was a 'bad" man we can overlook it right?


My god, the strawman...it is so beautiful...so large...and so full of excrement. Truly a wonder to behold.


Strawman?


Your quote is right there and everything, yet you seem to not understand what you said, and why it is a strawman. Interesting.

Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: