Just read about a new drone assassination. Am I the only one to consider these to be political assassinations?

I mean what right does any government have to send out its drones into the territory of another state and assassin anyone without a trial/ conviction?

"Am I the only one to consider these to be political assassinations? "

Probably.

	Quote:
	This user would like to thank EPMike for this useful post: st2lemans

Apparently not (reading is difficult hey)

Depends if a state of war exists between the two countries. If there's a war, then drones are just another tool of war. I personally would not target civilian political leadership, but if somebody self-identifies as part of the military leadership (commander-in-chief, marshal, general, generalissimo, etc) then they are a valid target. IMO, I think going after military leadership is a good idea, because it's not the poor soldiers getting killed on the front line who started the war, it's the leadership that's ordering them to kill & be killed.

Countries have been engaging in "limited military actions" for centuries and finding ways to justify it. In most modern countries, the executive branch of government has the authority to declare a military emergency or unilaterally authorize the use of force under specific conditions and the legislature holds the power of review and funding of these actions. If the executive abuses his authority, the legislative branch can remove him/her and further, the judicial branch can prosecute him. Using drones is just the newest tool.

Good point about "I think going after military leadership is a good idea, because it's not the poor soldiers getting killed on the front line who started the war, it's the leadership that's ordering them to kill & be killed."

I sort of had that in my head but not so clearly stated. I guess we would have fewer conflicts started if the leaders thought they would be first in the firing line rather than the poor conscripts going over the top with fixed bayonets.

Ok, maybe I was not clear: I was referring to drone assassinations in a foreign state (e.g. Pakistan) with whom the assassin state (US) is not in a state of war with.

The US makes up the rules as they go along, or there simply aren't any. Pakistan is considered to be harboring terrorists so the US will go after them as they need to keep the façade alive that they are international allies. Pakistani authorities aren't in control of events within their own borders, hence the Reapers.

Fact is, we no longer (if we did) live in a world where armed conflict is between two countries in a declared (ie, declared via diplomatic channels). Non-state entities (think Hezlbollah) wield weaponry on a large scale, but don't engage Lebanon in conflict on an administrative level, just on a victim level. And so, with the Western world's fear of having theirs sons and daughters killed in conflict, we have moved to the drone strikes which achieve the military if not political objective, without putting at risk the military force that does the task. It changes the ballgame but is inevitable. Pacifists object, but it's the state of the art and isn't going to be rolled back, so long as various extremists try to overthrow friendly governments, or train individuals to inflict random damage in our own countries. It may annoy as the local population if it feels "no right to revenge" but I don't care about that. It's called technological advantage. They tolerate those nutjobs, too bad.

In the case of Pakistan (and perhaps Yemen too), the drone strikes have gone on for so long, I find it difficult to believe that the US does not have the tacit approval of the government. I read an article the other day about the NWFP area of Pakistan and was surprised to read that the drones don't just zip in, fire some rockets and then leave, but reportedly there are 4 of them flying around constantly. I don't think the US would be so belligerent as to have 4 drones in Pak airspace constantly without the approval of the Zardari government.

The two things that concern me about drone usage - moreso than the issue of flying around in other countries' airspace are:
1) The definition of militant, as in the headline "10 militants were killed..." is extremely wide. It's something like any able bodied male between the ages of 19 and 50. So even if the drone strike hits the target. Any other male who was killed or injured in the strike, whether it was a militant associate, or the guy's milkman, is put down as a militant. This would imply that there are lots of innocent people getting blown up in these strikes.

2) Closer to home, the market for and usage of drones - this time i mean non-military drones - seems like it is going to really take off and bring with it big-brother type surveillance.

What is pleasing to see though is that there are many activists in America and abroad who won't let the issue of drone strikes, their (sometimes) illegal use, and the carnage they cause go unchallenged.

I'm not sure I agree. Yes, a drone strike might take out the intended target(s), but if you look at the overall effect of drone strikes: wrong targets hit and innocent people killed, the drone strikes end up as a recruiting tool for the US's enemies. So one military objective is achieved, but another military headache is created

Oh dear. Years ago when OBL pronounced his fatwa against America, his sole argument to backup his position that American citizens were legitimate targets was "they pay taxes to the US government and tolerate the government's misdeeds, so too bad."

This article calls drone Obama's weapon of choice. Accurding to it, Obama has authorized 6 times more drone strikes in Pakistan than the number of strikes during 8 years of Bush.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/05/op...one/index.html

The bottom line is no one wants their citizens to die. So drones keep our troops safe. The DST has created a cookie cutter industry of making islamist suspects "disappear" when they go back to Yemen or Algeria. But with advances in technology and communication since Sept 11th 2001, the Americans have stepped in and replaced the French. But there is no difference. This is not a new thing.

But there is plenty of documentary evidence of these people doing bad stuff to the USA. Like this documentary made back in the 1980's

About "The definition of militant, as in the headline "10 militants were killed..." is extremely wide. It's something like any able bodied male between the ages of 19 and 50. So even if the drone strike hits the target. Any other male who was killed or injured in the strike, whether it was a militant associate, or the guy's milkman, is put down as a militant. This would imply that there are lots of innocent people getting blown up in these strikes. "

& on the other side there are lots of innocent people getting blown up by the Jihadist suicide bombers. Who is right? Who is wrong?
Certainly if you look at the statistics there are far, far more innocent people getting blown up by suicide & other local bombers than by drones.
For me I put it all in the "too difficult to deal with" tray, sorry no valid opinion from me.

But, for some, it's easier to dislike America for whatever reason that to think about all those icky distasteful acts by the poor downtrodden villagers who are just trying to get by, shoot women who open a book, cultivate heroin and sell it to support their activities despite their own 'good book' proscribing such activities, bomb markets full of their fellow men and women because someone felt they weren't following their strict interpretation of a book, etc etc etc. Yes...all the evil western governments should apologize.

You are for sure not the only one who considers them assassinations, but the "political" part is wrong.
I disagree. There is a difference between drone attacks and any other form of "limited warfare" before: We have pretty clear "rules" how war works and even some of the wildest dictators like Saddam stick to them most of the time: A soldier wears a uniform to identify the side he is on. People get killed in open combat. People get captured. War criminals get trials... however, a targeted assassination is not the same as some random attack on an enemy base.

A drone does not kill randomly soldiers that wear the enemy uniform. It has high resolution cameras and the operators IDENTIFY their targets before they kill them. (That's why drones are operated by the CIA and not the air force) That is the exact opposite of the normal rules of war and is explicitly and to great detail outlawed in the fourth Geneva convention. Yes, even in an "official" war.
Flying into Pakistan and killing Bin Laden without a trial was illegal by any norm there is. The targeted killing of Taliban SUSPECTS without a trial through drones is illegal - and that's just the cases where the drone actually just kills the person they wanted to.

Many world powers have never 100% followed the Geneva convention. But in the past did they know it was wrong and tried to cover it up somehow. Nowadays does it seem completely acceptable that some CIA agent with a joystick can decide about the life or death of a suspect - without all the trouble of arrests, evidence, defence and pesky judges... It is the single topic where Obama disappointed me the most (except of his broken promise on Guantanamo bay maybe). He is a lawyer and for sure knows much better than me what fundamental legal principles he keeps on breaking. W. Bush tried to fight terrorists with a traditional war. A stupid idea that obviously did not work. Obama tries to fight terrorists with means of terrorism. Seems more effective, but the moral price is in my eyes too high.

Using the excuse of an interpretation of a holy book to permit abuse of men, women & children.
Basically the people who are doing this do get enjoyment & satisfaction out of the activity. Consequently no strong driver to change so the situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
I am also uncomfortable about the use of drones but what is the alternative? The terrorists do not wear uniforms or have a registered place of work so how can this problem be tackled?

Hopefully, if the US leadership is conducting the war correctly, there are NO random attacks going on. I CAN however understand how certain attacks can be seen or portrayed as random because we, as outsiders, don't have all the information that the US leadership possessed when the decision to attack was made.

Also, what do you do when your opponents don't wear uniforms, but continue to attack you in a violent or militaristic fashion? Do you simply let your citizens die, saying "Oh gosh, we can't shoot back... They're not wearing uniforms!". Do you think it is practical to attempt to detain and try every non-uniformed partisan that is running around out there? (Keep in mind this implies risking the lives of the soldiers/agents attempting to make the "arrest"- many of the partisans don't just simply give up; they fight back, and further, they believe it is glorious to die fighting infidels.). This is one reason we elect officials and empower them to make these judgements and we elect other officials to provide funding and oversight of the first group of individuals. (See my original post)

This is the EXACT same thing that snipers do, and sniping has been around as long as man has had the ability to propel a projectile through the air. Historical armies employed stone-slingers, spear throwers, archers, and eventually gun-wielding individuals in this role and, as such, has been an accepted part of war for centuries. The drone technology simply makes it easier to precisely identify and attack a target from a distance.

No, the killing of OBL was entirely legal and in my mind moral and justified. Did Bin Laden conduct trials for the thousands of Americans he ordered killed on September 11th? Further, continuing to kill terrorist partisans with drones is also entirely legal; these individuals are choosing to engage in war with the US. If they themselves want a trial, all they must do is surrender. As to the "collateral losses," what is the US to do when these partisans intentionally engage in human shield tactics by forcing women and children to surround them at all times, everywhere they go? Are they to be allowed to continue ordering attacks on Americans with impunity? IMO, if these partisans do ANYTHING other than fully evacuate civilians from their vicinity, they are carrying the largest portion of the moral burden for these people's lives.

Of course not, you simply shoot them when they are attacking. But if they are not wearing an uniform are they technically criminals and not an enemy army. So they need to be trialed in a civil court as such and do not enjoy the benefits POW do. This was the core of the entire guantanamo story - suddenly was there a large number of captives that did not fit in any standard category. No POWs, but not common criminals either - let alone that Afghanistan was in no position to safely lock them up. Out of that dilemma was the worst route taken and they were locked up indefinitely in terrible conditions in some legal vacuum. And ten years later still are...


Not at all the same thing.
Sniper: There is an enemy on the roof of the third building from the right.
Drone: Here is biometric data of Taleban suspect A. Fly over village X and try to locate him.

So the difference is that a sniper is a soldier IN BATTLE shooting an UNIDENTIFIED enemy soldier.

A drone flies into enemy territory, identifies an individual person, typically a comander, and assassinates him. Not at all the same thing.

Have there been strategic assassinations before? Sure, especially the Mossad is famous for it. But it has never happened in an automated fashion and in the scale of the last years. It really changes the paradigm of how the US lead the war in Afghanistan - the problem was that the Taleban are backed by the tribes just accross the border in Pakistan. So they could strike and quickly retreat into a safe place as the US troops would not dare to go into Pakistan. The right thing to do would be to sort the shit out with the Pakistani leadership that have in the last decade blatantly betrayed their official ally US (while happily taking the military aid and other goodies). So the entire drone war is a very immoral and bad substitute for good diplomacy.

This is might be your opinion and I fully agree that a special operation to catch OBL was morally more than justified - but it simply is not legal. And neither are the drone strikes. The US violates a foreign countries' territory an power monopoly. Right now the US can do so... because they have the military and technical ability to. That does not give them a legal right at all.

So, we always wait for them to shoot first? That sounds dangerous to me. If I am in a combat zone, and there's somebody holding a gun, and I recognize this individual as an enemy combatant, I would not wait to see if he kills me first.

No, by convention, partisans out of uniform are considered spies and can be summarily executed on the spot, WITHOUT a trial. Again, by convention, they have no POW rights. So, it is an act of benevolence when the US chooses to inter these people as POWs. Additionally, POWs are usually released when the war is officially over. In the war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda, neither opponent has surrendered nor given any indication that the war is over.

VERY MUCH the same thing, I'm afraid. In addition to the use you described above, snipers are ROUTINELY given instructions to kill specific, identifiable individuals. During WWII (and since), snipers were given photographs of prominent generals, and sent to infiltrate and kill these people. Snipers were also trained to be able to interpret enemy military insignia to determine who the battlefield leaders were, and attack them first. All this is exactly what a drone does, except in this case, we're only risking the life of the enemy combatant.


I believe it is very good diplomacy. It demonstrates that the US will not allow its citizens and soldiers to be attacked. It also says that the attackers may not manipulate international boundaries to their benefit; they will be found and attacked, regardless of where. It is policy to seek the permission and support of these countries, so nobody's sovereignity is violated.

It has been attempted to involve the Islamabad government more in these operations, but the government itself is highly fragmented (can lead to loss of operational security) and does not itself exercise adequate political control of the regions where the partisans are hiding, rendering their assistance somewhat useless. The best scenario for Islamabad is to let the US drones do the killing and keep their own hands clean.


How is it illegal? Pakistan has granted US forces overflight privileges, and has allowed US forces to operate within its borders. All the whinging that went on was purely to appease the factions that are sympathetic to the Taliban, OBL, and Al Qaeda.

So a US officer on home leave not wearing his uniform is a legitimate target for a attack? If all his family and friends were blown up you would consider them to be collateral damage?

For the definition of a combatant read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant
As the USA did ratify the "Protocol I" (amendment to the Geneva Convention), it is enough for enemy fighters to openly carry their arms while engaging in military activities to be considered combatants.There is no need for them to wear uniforms or another sign. The USA thus clearly violated the Geneva Convention by not granting POW status to the Taliban fighters, they captured. I do not know where you got the idea that captured Taliban fighters were POWs, because they aren't. The US government created the term "enemy fighter" in order to avoid the Geneva Convention from applying to the captured Talibans.