President Drone, war criminal

Let's not pretend you "sincerely want to follow up" on both sides of this argument.

I wasn't pretending that I do, I was saying that I don't. Not because I don't think it's important or relevant, but because of time. (It was somebody else who first brought up Hiroshima on this thread.) The dropping of the bomb--whether it was a necessary action to save the lives of American soldiers and spare the Japanese from utter destruction, as Harry Truman claimed, or one of the greatest single war crimes of all time--is a debate/discussion that's been going on since it was dropped. You provided a link to a description of Hiroshima characterizing it as a military target, but the info there doesn't mention that there are those who dispute this characterization. The link I provided was merely intended as a place to start for anyone who might be unaware of the ongoing debate.  

Though if that counts as mocking, what does that say for the the following comments, all made by you:

Furthermore, you have represented your incomplete, at best, "accomplishment" as if you have done some kind of bang up, thorough research job.

Nathan, I've always found you to be one of the most intelligent, reasonable, fair minded, and remarkably patient posters on these threads, that is up until now, of course. Maybe, I misread you in the past, or maybe you've changed--I haven't read much that you have posted recently.

Maybe you don't read as widely and critically as I thought. 

You're right. I apologize. 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether or not these issues render the article as a biased hack job, or just unfortunate omissions in an otherwise worthwhile piece.

Fair enough.

Though were it an article that supported my side of the debate, and I used it as such. I am curious to know if you would be so forgiving.

I'd like to think I would.

I also noticed you skipped over your previous reference to my posts as anything but a "bang up, thorough research job,' and that I was considering my posts as such - as well as my response that nothing of the sort was needed. Any particular reason for skipping over your - rather prickish I might add - comment?

It had more to do with how much I was already posting, rather than wanting to skip over anything. The feeling I had was that I was already over explaining things and clogging up the main focus of the thread. Anyway, rather than writing "bang up, thorough research job" it would have been more precise and much less inflammatory if I had written that it seemed to me you were dismissing the article prematurely and authoritatively, as if there was nothing more to say about it. 

Drones Are A Local Issue
David Swanson
counterpunch, February 1-3, 2013 

In the absence of state or federal laws, localities around the United States are proceeding to put unmanned aerial vehicles in our skies as they see fit. The federal government has authorized the flight of 30,000 drones, and the use of drones up to 400 feet by police departments, at least 300 of which have surveillance drones in operation... In Montgomery County, Texas, the Sheriff showed off a drone to the media but crashed it into his armored vehicle... When the Dept. of Homeland Security challenged the University of Texas-Austin to hack into a drone and take control of it, the response was "No problem," and it was quickly done... the arming of drones with tear gas and rubber bullets (is) already underway in many US localities. 

Dreams in Infrared
The Woes of An American Drone Operator
Nicola Abe
SpiegelOnline

[Part I]

For more than five years, Brandon Bryant worked in an oblong, windowless container about the size of a trailer, where the air-conditioning was kept at...63 degrees... and for security reasons the door couldn't be opened. Bryant and his coworkers sat in front of 14 computer monitors and four keyboards. When Bryant pushed a button in New Mexico, someone died on the other side of the world.

When he received the order to fire, he pressed a button with his left hand and marked the roof with a laser. The pilot sitting next to him pressed the trigger on a joy stick, causing the drone to launch a Hellfire missile. There were 16 seconds left until impact. "These moments are like in slow motion," he says today.

With seven seconds to go, there was no one to be seen on the ground. Bryant could still have diverted the missile at that point. Then it was down to three seconds... Suddenly a child walked around the corner, he says...

Bryant saw a flash on the screen: the explosion... Bryant had a sick felling in his stomach.

"Did we just kill a kid? he asked the man sitting next to him.

"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.

"Was that a kid?" they wrote into a chat window on the monitor.

Then, someone they didn't know answered, someone sitting in a military command center somewhere in the world had observed their attack. "No. That was a dog," the person wrote.

They reviewed the scene on video. A dog on two legs? 


http://www.spiegel.de/international
/world/pain-continues-after-war-for
-american-drone-pilot-a-872726.html
 

The Woes of An American Drone Operator (continued)

Bryant completed 6,000 flight hours during his six years in the Air Force. "I saw men, women and children die during that time," says Bryant. "I never thought I would kill that many people. In fact, I thought I couldn't kill anyone at all."

Bryant remembers the first time he fired a missile, killing two men instantly. As Bryant looked on, he could see a third man in mortal agony. The man's leg was missing and he was holding his hands over the stump as his warm blood flowed onto the ground - for two long minutes. He cried on his way home, says Bryant, and he called his mother.

"I felt disconnected from humanity for almost a week,"

He can't see in one place for very long anymore, he says. It makes him nervous.

His girlfriend broke up with him recently. She had asked him about the burden he carries, so he told her about it. But it proved to a be a hardship she could neither cope with nor share. 

The Woes of an American Drone Officer (continued)

Bryant preferred night shifts, because that meant it was daytime in Afghanistan. In the spring, the landscape, with its snow-covered peaks and green valleys, reminded him of his native Montana. He saw people cultivating their fields, boys playing soccer and men hugging their wives and children... He observed people for weeks, including Taliban fighters hiding weapons, and people who were on lists because the military, the intelligence agencies or local informants knew something about them. "I got to know them. Until someone higher up in the chain of command gave me the order to shoot." He felt remorse because of the children, whose fathers he was taking away. "They were good daddies," he says.

On uneventful days... he would write in his diary, jotting down lines like: "On the battlefield there are no sides, just bloodshed. Total war. Every horror witnessed. I wish my eyes would rot."

At some point he no longer enjoyed seeing his friends. He met a girl, but she complained about this bad moods... When he came home and couldn't sleep, he would exercise instead. He began talking back to his superior officers.

Doctors at the VA diagnosed Bryant with post-traumatic stress disorder.

There was one day, he says, when he knew he wouldn't sign the next contract. It was the day Bryant walked into the cockpit and heard himself saying to his coworkers: "Hey, what m********** is going to die today?





http://www.spiegel.de/international
/world/pain-continues-after-war-for
-american-drone-pilot-a-872726.html
  

On uneventful days... he would write in his diary, jotting down lines like: "On the battlefield there are no sides, just bloodshed. Total war. Every horror witnessed. I wish my eyes would rot."

At some point he no longer enjoyed seeing his friends. He met a girl, but she complained about this bad moods... When he came home and couldn't sleep, he would exercise instead. He began talking back to his superior officers.

Doctors at the VA diagnosed Bryant with post-traumatic stress disorder.


War is hell, you'll find few to dispute that.  It's worse for those that put their physical bodies in combat zones, but I don't doubt that those manning drones stateside would be susceptable to PTSD (a very serious issue that is still drastically undertreated).

However, I do not understand how this would illustrate that drones are illegal, using them is a war crime, or anything of the sort - if that was your intention (which I assume based on the thread title more than anything).

However, I do not understand how this would illustrate that drones are illegal, using them is a war crime, or anything of the sort - if that was your intention (which I assume based on the thread title more than anything).




I am not a big fan of drone (they are, however, a fact of life) but I will tell you what makes the Administration's case a whole lot weaker is ther leaked rationale, available here:    


[http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/s
ections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper
.pdf]
  

skynet

you should not be allowed to kill an american citizen via drone or any other means without the right to trial. 


but hey, this is panic and fear we are talking about. americans have a solid pattern with messing their panties and wishing for that false sense of security. 

it's not as if the federal govt is allowing some drone free-for-all in our skies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/t
echnology/drones-with-an-eye-on-the
-public-cleared-to-fly.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Under the new law, within 90 days, the F.A.A. must allow police and first responders to fly drones under 4.4 pounds, as long as they keep them under an altitude of 400 feet and meet other requirements. The agency must also allow for “the safe integration” of all kinds of drones into American airspace, including those for commercial uses, by Sept. 30, 2015. And it must come up with a plan for certifying operators and handling airspace safety issues, among other rules.


The new law, part of a broader financing bill for the F.A.A., came after intense lobbying by drone makers and potential customers.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news
/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-yo
u/?page=all

“There are serious policy questions on the horizon about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities,” said [Steven Aftergood], who heads the Project on Government Secrecy at the [Federation of American Scientists].

The [Electronic Frontier Foundation] also is “concerned about the implications for surveillance by government agencies,” said attorney[Jennifer Lynch].

The provision in the legislation is the fruit of “a huge push by lawmakers and the defense sector to expand the use of drones” in American airspace, she added.

According to some estimates, the commercial drone market in the United States could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars once the [FAA]clears their use.

The agency projects that 30,000 drones could be in the nation’s skies by 2020.

.... i tend to agree with that last part. there really is nothing stopping 24x7 drones in the air. congress is A-OK with it.

Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians from US Drone Practices in Pakistan
September, 2012

International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, Stanford Law School
Global Justice Clinic, NYU School of Law

Anticipatory self defense has been "invoked to prevent an attack that is 'instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.' There is little publicly available evidence to support a claim that each of the US targeted killings in northwest Pakistan meets these standards. Indeed, currently available evidence, known practices--such as signature strikes, and placing individuals on kill lists for extended periods of time--raise significant questions about how the self-defense test is satisfied."

"By failing to account adequately for their activities in any public forum and even refusing to acknowledge publicly the existence of targeted killing operations for years or to explain sufficiently their legal basis, the US has failed to meet its international legal obligations to ensure transparency and accountability. In addition, while Article 51 of the UN Charter, which the US has implicitly invoked to justify strikes, requires that 'measures taken by Members in exercise of [their] right to self-defense... be immediately reported to Security Council,' the US has yet to make such a report.

[http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-con
tent/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_L
IVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf]

 

Living Under Drones [continued]

"This report, however, aims to draw attention to a critical gap in understanding, specifically about life under drones... Available evidence suggests that these impacts are significant, and challenges the prevailing US government and media narrative that portrays drones as pinpoint precision weapons with limited collateral impact. It is crucial that broader civilian impacts and voices of those affected be given due weight in US debates about drones."

[http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-con

tent/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_L

IVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf]

Living Under Drones [continued]


March 17, 2011

On the morning of March 17, 2011, the US deployed a drone to fire at least two missiles into a large gathering near a bus depot in the town of Datta Khel, North Waziristan. To this day, US officials publicly insist that all those killed were insurgents. That position, however, is contradicted by a range of other sources, including the Pakistani military, an independent investigation by the Associated Press, interviews with attorneys, and the testimony of nine witnesses, survivors, and family members gathered for this report. This evidence suggests that at least 42 were killed, mostly civilians, and another 14 injured. 

According to those we interviewed, on March 17, some 40 individuals gathered in Datta Khel town center. They included important community figures and local elders, all of whom were there to attend a jirga--the principal social institution for decision-making and dispute resolution in FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas). The jirga on March 17 was convened to settle a dispute over a nearby chromite mine. Ass of the relevant stakeholders and local leaders were in attendance, including 35 government-appointed tribal leaders known as maliks, as well as government officials, and a number of khassadars (government employees administered at the local level by maliks who serve as a locally recruited police force). Four men from a local Taliban group were also reportedly present, as their involvement was necessary to resolve the dispute effectively. Malik Daud Khan, a respected leader and decorated public servant chaired the meeting. 

Living Under Drones

March 17, 2011 [continued] 

The jirga had been convened in Datta Khel's Nomada bus depot, an open space in the middle of town large enough to accommodate over 40 people as they sat in two large circles about 12 feet apart. Though drones were hovering daily over North Waziristan, those at this meeting said they felt "secure and insulated" from the threat of drones, because in their assessment at the time, "drones target terrorists or those working against the government." This in contrast, was a jirga, a government-sanctioned meeting, held to ensure "no problems occurred in [the] area and no-one would pose problems for the government." According to a Pakistani military commander in North Waziristan, Brigadier Abdullah Dogar, the maliks had even taken care to alert the local military post of the planned jirga ten days beforehand.

Living Under Drones

March 17, 2011 [continued] 

At approximately 10:45 am, as the two groups were engaged in discussion, a missile fired from a US drone hovering above struck one of the circles. Ahmed Jan, who was sitting in one of the two circles of roughly 20 men each, told our researchers that he remembered hearing the hissing sound the missiles made just seconds before they slammed into the center of his group. The force of the impact threw Jan's body a significant distance, knocking him unconscious, and killing everyone else sitting in his circle. Several additional missiles were fired, at least one of which hit the second circle. In all, the missiles killed a total of at least 42 people.

[http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-con
tent/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_L
IVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf]

 

Drones are a new military tool.  If we had them in the Civil War, they would have been used against Gen. Lee and Jefferson Davis.  In WWII, against Hitler, Mussolini and Emperor of Japan.  In Vietnam, against Ho Chi Minh.  In Iraq, against Saddam.

I do not consider Americans who join an organization to kill Americans to still have citizenship.

Under the new law, within 90 days, the F.A.A. must allow police and first responders to fly drones under 4.4 pounds, as long as they keep them under an altitude of 400 feet and meet other requirements. The agency must also allow for “the safe integration” of all kinds of drones into American airspace, including those for commercial uses, by Sept. 30, 2015. And it must come up with a plan for certifying operators and handling airspace safety issues, among other rules.

The new law, part of a broader financing bill for the F.A.A., came after intense lobbying by drone makers and potential customers.

Which is exactly my point - there are regulations in existance.  One part of this in particular I'll touch on after this:

i tend to agree with that last part. there really is nothing stopping 24x7 drones in the air. congress is A-OK with it.

Actually, there is.  For one, the regulations haven't been set yet for commercial usage, so we have no idea what sort of restrictions will be placed on their usage.  Also, nothing in the article you listed mentions anything about Congress being ok with 24/7 usage.  What they did (and a buddy of mine was thinking about getting into this business, so we read a crap load of FAA regs and the like) was say that the FAA has to come up with a full set of commercial use regulations by 2015. 

It could very well be that they are restricted to day-light hours, for one.  I'd expect it, especially as the current rules require that the UAS be operated within the operator's eyesight.  Can't see it at night...

But most of all, back to the part I put off above, check out that 4.4 lb stipulation.  What sort of power supply can you slap on a drone, that will keep the whole weight under 4.4 lbs, that can fly for hours on end?  Nothing.  It doesn't exist.

Current battery technology limits maximum fly time, for drones built to these specifications, to 20-30 minutes.  Tops.  That's it.  And these drones are going for $40k-$100k.  They probably only cost $3-4k to build, but still.

you should not be allowed to kill an american citizen via drone or any other means without the right to trial. 

Well there goes the need for a bearing arms for self-protection.  You should just subdue those people that break into your house with guns, and wait for the proper authorities.

And before you say "that's not even the same damn thing," why not?  At what point does an American citizen, who has joined a group that has declared war on the US, that actively recruits and participates in this anti-US war effort, lose his right to a trial - or rather, when does our govt have the power to forgo the arrest, charging, trial, etc, and is allowed to just blow his ass up?

We give US citizens, police, and our militar the right to kill US citizens when the situation allows - why is there no such situation for drones?

but hey, this is panic and fear we are talking about. americans have a solid pattern with messing their panties and wishing for that false sense of security. 

You really think that's what's driving me?  Really....?

At what point does an American citizen, who has joined a group that has declared war on the US,

At what point can what is said on these boards be used as evidence to prove that you are terrorist, or want the US federal govt to be ousted. 

At what point can what is said on these boards be used as evidence to prove that you are terrorist, or want the US federal govt to be ousted.  

wasting your time.

wasting your time.

You think that's a legit comparison?

Actively waging war against the US vs practicing free speech? 

Really??????????????

I know that the first amendment protects the latter, but I'm pretty sure there isn't any "Freedom to wage war on the US" clause in the Constitution.

At what point can what is said on these boards be used as evidence to prove that you are terrorist, or want the US federal govt to be ousted. 

Because words and actions are the same thing, under the Constitution.

Because words and actions are the same thing,

Since when do you have to blow up a building to be labeled as a terrorist?

Also, Bill Ayres is fair game if he ever leaves the country. 

Also, Bill Ayres is fair game if he ever leaves the country. 

Does he really have to leave the country?  Like I mentioned to nathan, George Washington University Law School Law Professor Johnathan Turley says he doesn't:

  "President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own.  If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.   

Two of his aides just … reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States."

President Obama "says that he can kill you on his own discretion"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/


12/21/1047695/-Turley-President-Oba


ma-says-that-he-can-kill-you-on-his


-own-discretion

Under current United States law, set forth in the [USA PATRIOT Act], acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference"> [[3]]</sup>


And then we'll walk er back in to drone hits are legal in the states. 

And then we'll walk er back in to drone hits are legal in the states. 

Nope:

Administration lawyers found it is lawful to kill an American citizen if a “high-level” government official believes the target is an operational leader of al Qaeda who poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States” and if capture is infeasible, according to a newly disclosed Justice Department document.

[http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic
s/2013/02/drone-strikes-on-us-terro
r-suspects-legal-ethical-wise-white
-house-says/]