CIA Drones Kill Large Groups Without Knowing Who They Are.

Obama is allowing this to happen on his watch. Its approved by Clinton.

Obama is allowing innocent people to be killed with machines called predators and reapers.

This almost sound satanic.

The CIA does whatever it wants.

If the CIA wants to steal the Pope's sandwich and then hang his corpse from Buckingham Palace, then that's what the CIA does.

reply to post by CherubBaby


CIA is a little out of control me thinks. I mean, when they start flying these over the US (i think they are on the Mexico border - not armed), but armed. Scary thought that a country could keep its civilians in line with death from above lol. I mean, we aren't in that state yet.. but if things don't get better.. 50 years from now we may be hearing about "accidental" drone killings in the US .

Wait.
What does unmanned aerial assaults into foreign countries NOT currently in an official declared state of war have to do with Intelligence Gathering!?

When did the C.I.A. become one of the armed forces? How do you go from essentially espionage, and lets be honest, assassination to military operations?

You would think something like this would be a bit outside their charter.

I first want to thank everyone for their facts/opinions/concerns etc. Regardless if we see the whole picture and judicate wisely or foolishly, the facts and truths are all that matters. I have decided to answer your posts and try to do a decent job all at the same time..

8ILlBILl8 ,, You say below,

CIA does what ever the hell they want. They are the real Government. They sell drugs, spy on you, any thing goes. Dont be so surprised.

My answer to you is I am not surprised and yet I am. I am not surprised that people die at times by the hands of others. I am surprised that people die without proof that they need to die in the first place..

thebestnr1 you say below,

u didnt know that ,really?
dont wanna get in trouble
but #
yes the usa has been blowing up people without trial
so who are the [george bush prenounsation] trrreerreist
i would tell u but i would be labelled a speech impeachement myself

If you are saying what I think your saying, I agree. .


circlemaker you say below,

Through the collateral damage of innocents the CIA are likely creating more terrorists. Some kid's parents get taken out either due to suspicion or by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and guess what? That kid wants to get back at the oppressors when he grows up. Cycle repeats, blood money keeps flowing.

I coudn't have said it better myself.

spacedoubt you say below,

It's not just drones, and it's not just the CIA.
This happens on the ground too
I guess the worst part about drones, rather than bullets, is that drones have no conscience, and the "pilots" never look at them eye to eye. Besides, the pilots can be home to the wife and kids, just in time for dinner after a strike.

I don't think your wrong either.


intrptr you say below,

Nothing burns my bridge more than this issue of drones right now. Free roaming death angels that know no boundaries of International Law, Geography or Morality

I think they like to find people gathered in groups. Some kind of dark return to the ethos of Viet Nam when more bodies meant more dead VC

"If they run, they're VC. If they stand still they're well disciplined VC."-- Door Gunner , from the movie Full Metal Jacket

Once again I totally agree.


Xcathdra
I am going to reply to your posts seperately. I have a bit more to share in response to your posts,


Shadow Herder You say below,

Well they shouldnt hate our freedoms and they shouldnt of have done 911. That will teach em

I have to tell you that even God allows people to hate Him.
That does not make someone deserve to die.
There is no proof to many people that they were guillty of 911
I am one of them that is not convinced of their guilt


I will continue on my next post to reply and move down the thread. Thanks again.

These are the desperate attempts of a Corrupt Empire when it is reaching its last days as a Global superpower.

Nothing more.

reply to post by dethduck


Your questions are good questions so I had to jump in here. The bush administration, 4 days after 911 gave permission to the CIA to do Black Ops without Congressional approval or Congressional Funding. The other strange Illegal part of his actions is that he also Gave The CIA permission to start spying on The American People without Congressional approval or funding. The type of permission I am talking about is beyond Homeland Security and TSA. There are litterally thousands of people, paid through not necessarily, but possibly by The Cia who work in a myriad of buildings in The US that are trolling and analyzing data and phone calls etc from within The US on The American People and that is also illegal. I will explain more in after I have time to write the post later on. Thanks

reply to post by Xcathdra


the constitution may not apply to foreigners, but the geneva convention apply's to u.s. citizens. if they're not terrorist you're targeting, then they're civilians.

and you're mistaken. article VI of the constitution of the united states that treaty obligations of the United States are the “supreme law of the land."

the supreme court also held that international laws are also part of u.s. laws.

u.s. military personnel have to take into consideration the laws of armed conflict when planning and executing an operation and have to obey the laws of armed conflict when in combat.

if any military personnel, regardless of rank, violates the LOAC they can be held criminally liable for war crimes.

recklessly and deliberately targeting civilians, without evidence of being terrorists, is a war crime. you have to assume they're civilians first, unless given reason otherwise.

but when you're on top, it's called collateral damage.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You know I respect you and you know why. I do however think that you are failling to mention several facts that are critical and compelling. Your first post says,

The areas the drones are hitting are the parts inside Pakistan where the Pakistani government wont even go. They, Pakistani government, have made several deals with the extremists in those areas

I don't doubt that The Pakistani Govt has made some deals with the "Extremists".According to an article from July this year. The US has suspended Financial Aid that was promised to the Pakistani Govt. because The US Govt. is not happy with what it calls "Poor security cooperation"

“We cannot afford to keep our military out in the mountains for such a long period of time,” said Mukhtar, a member of the civilian government, which is viewed as subordinate to the military.

White House officials said Sunday that the United States, which has provided billions of dollars in military aid and reimbursements to Pakistan over the past decade, was withholding about one-third of this year’s payments to express discontent over poor security cooperation

You see that sounds to me like The Pakistani Army got talked into Fighting a War for The US and for what? The Pakistani Govt has a fine war machine. They have always handled their own problems.. 10 years of fighting a war they didn't start with Militants, Extremists, Etc gets old real quick and puts tensions on their own National Security in my opinion. Maybe even from within. I bet their Soldiers have some foul opinions on this war and what role they have been made to endure.The Govt wont go into those areas because it's a hell hole and their men are tired of dying for nothing
I have a few questions at this point. If we are killing them in the middle of nowhere 10-20 or more at a time, with no trial or witnesses, and the CIA is doing the flying and killing then who is to say who is actually dying? Phrases like a strike killed 50 militants over the weekend etc is BS without proof. BTW Kepp your friends close and your enemy closer is a good ole saying for a reason. My point is the Pakistan People can't always run from these situations and maybe they are being killed innocently just because they are talking to the enemy. That a possibility ? You say also,

They attack cross border into Afghanistan

The article says they are coming into Pakistan from Afghanistan.

Troops of Pakistan's army and other security forces gather in Nusrat Dara in Upper Dir, Pakistan Wednesday, July 6, 2011. Hundreds of militants crossed into Pakistan from Afghanistan, and attacked several border villages

You close by saying,

Is there any reason we shouldnt respond? They dont seem to care who they target, so why not return the favor?

Respond to what. I dont even know who the hell is getting killed. It seems the CIA doesnt seem to care who they target.There is another issue I will discuss later when I have time. Thx for the post.

Psychos shoot randomly into crowds. They rarely rack up 20 dead because they are gunned down. They are gunned down because they are psycho and the evidence is that they are shooting randomly into crowds. How is this different from what the CIA is doing?

i wanna control one of them drones

sick of havin to walk all around afghanistan

but then i cud get fat

Originally posted by randomname
the constitution may not apply to foreigners, but the geneva convention apply's to u.s. citizens. if they're not terrorist you're targeting, then they're civilians.

The Geneva convention covers actions of military personnel engaged in armed conflict with another country. It does not apply to citizens with the exception of their status in times of armed conflict. The term enemy combatent is a UN phrase, not a US made one.

Originally posted by randomname
and you're mistaken. article VI of the constitution of the united states that treaty obligations of the United States are the “supreme law of the land."

And the head money case claddressed that issue by ruling the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, no foreign treaties can grant any authority to the US government that is not specified in the Constitution, and made any foreign treaties the US signs as part of the federal body of law, making it subservient to the US constitution.

So no, I am not wrong. Respectuflly, you need to do some more research before telling me that.

Head Money Case

The Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884)[1], were the subject of an important United States Supreme Court decision. They were decided on December 8, 1884.

The case established the precedent that treaties, which are described in the United States Constitution as "the supreme law of the land," nonetheless do not hold a privileged position above other acts of Congress, and other laws affecting "its enforcement, modification, or repeal" are legitimate.

Originally posted by randomname
the supreme court also held that international laws are also part of u.s. laws.

Correct - See Head Money Case above.

Originally posted by randomname
u.s. military personnel have to take into consideration the laws of armed conflict when planning and executing an operation and have to obey the laws of armed conflict when in combat.

They do. The 3rd Geneva convention is a part of the UCMJ, which governs our armed forces. However if you read through the Geneva Conventions there are exceptions to it. Namely it requires "armed forces" to be distinct, IE uniforms, established rank structure etc etc etc, which Al Queida and the Taliban do not use. Any country who is a signatory to the geneva conventions, which Afghanistan was not under the rule of the Taliban, and violates it, it does allow for a measured response in the same way.

If the actions on side violate the conventions, they lose its protection.

Originally posted by randomname
if any military personnel, regardless of rank, violates the LOAC they can be held criminally liable for war crimes.

The US is not a signatory to the ICC and the ICC states it has no jurisdiction in a country who is not a member of it. The LOAC also states that distinction must be made to determine who is cilvilian and who is a valid military target. Going back to what I covered before about the Geneva convention and the lack of uniforms and rank structure. Any violations are handeled throught the JAG corp using the UCMJ as the basis for investigation, refferal of charges and court martial should it be sustained.

In addition anytime an off limits structure (school / Hospital / Religious building) is used by an opposing force, those structures are no longer considered off limits. It also goes into detail about raifications when an armed group forces and engagment with civilians in the area.

Originally posted by randomname
recklessly and deliberately targeting civilians, without evidence of being terrorists, is a war crime. you have to assume they're civilians first, unless given reason otherwise.

See answer above

Originally posted by randomname
but when you're on top, it's called collateral damage.

and when you are the Taliban / Al Queida its called a human shield, done in order to run up the civilian body count by purposely placing civilians in danger by engaging western forces in such a manner that any response will result in civilian casualties.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
You know I respect you and you know why. I do however think that you are failling to mention several facts that are critical and compelling. Your first post says,

The areas the drones are hitting are the parts inside Pakistan where the Pakistani government wont even go. They, Pakistani government, have made several deals with the extremists in those areas

I don't doubt that The Pakistani Govt has made some deals with the "Extremists".According to an article from July this year. The US has suspended Financial Aid that was promised to the Pakistani Govt. because The US Govt. is not happy with what it calls "Poor security cooperation"

It also was in response to Pakistan essentially hiding Bin Laden. Foreign aid is the perview of Congress, and as such it can be given or taken away, regardless of circumstances.

Originally posted by CherubBaby

“We cannot afford to keep our military out in the mountains for such a long period of time,” said Mukhtar, a member of the civilian government, which is viewed as subordinate to the military.

White House officials said Sunday that the United States, which has provided billions of dollars in military aid and reimbursements to Pakistan over the past decade, was withholding about one-third of this year’s payments to express discontent over poor security cooperation

You see that sounds to me like The Pakistani Army got talked into Fighting a War for The US and for what? The Pakistani Govt has a fine war machine. They have always handled their own problems.. 10 years of fighting a war they didn't start with Militants, Extremists, Etc gets old real quick and puts tensions on their own National Security in my opinion. Maybe even from within. I bet their Soldiers have some foul opinions on this war and what role they have been made to endure.The Govt wont go into those areas because it's a hell hole and their men are tired of dying for nothing.

If Pakistan chooses not to assist, then the US has every right to engage those forces under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Specifically the people in thos tribal areas are crossing the border to attack US / Afghan forces. The US / Afghan response is covered under the self defense portion of Chapter VII.

The tribal areas were essentailly discarded by Pakistan. opting to let those tribal areas run themselvs with the caveat they would not attack other areas in Pakistan. That ended early on, and lets not forget those same tribal groups captured a main naval base for 18 hours.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
I have a few questions at this point. If we are killing them ..snipped for response length

Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason for the vagueness of the military AAR's is done intentionally to protect sources on the ground? We have also received information from ISI as well as other intelligence sources. As far as civilian deaths go, you must take into account international law. Civilians are not supposed to be used as unwilling / unknowing human shields, yet the Taliban / Alqueida continually engaged with those civilians near by.

Its as much as their responsibility as it is ours to ensure civilians are out of harms way.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
You say also,

They attack cross border into Afghanistan

The article says they are coming into Pakistan from Afghanistan.

Troops of Pakistan's army and other security forces gather in Nusrat Dara in Upper Dir, Pakistan Wednesday, July 6, 2011. Hundreds of militants crossed into Pakistan from Afghanistan, and attacked several border villages

You close by saying,

Is there any reason we shouldnt respond? They dont seem to care who they target, so why not return the favor?

Respond to what. I dont even know who the hell is getting killed. It seems the CIA doesnt seem to care who they target.There is another issue I will discuss later when I have time. Thx for the post.

edit on 10-11-2011 by CherubBaby because: edit

Think about that for a moment. The terrorists are crossing into pakistan from afghanistan, and vice versa. What better way to acheive a goal by using the good old divide and conquer. The cross border raids are setting Pakistan and the US up to engage each other over territorial incursions.

The ultimate goal is to use diplomacy to resove problems, however when that fails whats left?

The most recent move I have seen was the dployment of a boat load of troops on the Sfghan side, as well as deployment of Pakistani troops on their side. To me it looks like a classic cattle drive. Either side of the fence can engage and push terrorists across the border into each others waiting military units.

Pakistan will complain because all politics are local. Whats said in public is not necessarily whats agreed to in private.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Hello again. Well I read all your post and there is so much that is still to be looked at. I have a few questions and I will give my answers.
#1 Do you think the wars have kept terrorists' out of the US. If so how ?
#2 Why is The CIA flying the drones?
#3 Do you in anyway shape or form believe that The CIA is going to admit any mistakes or wrong doing on there part when someone makes a mistake and kills the wrong people?
#4 If you will take a guess for me and tell me , Lets say there were 100% of these extremists i.e. terrorists' at the start of the wars, What % do you believe are still left or have been killed?
#5 Do you really think it is possible ever eliminate and kill all of them?
#6 What would you do as a civilian if The Us was accused of terrorism and invaded by another countries army .
#7 Would you consider yourself a terrorist or extremist for defending America and Americans ?
#8 Why would Pakistan hide Binladen and at the same time have their army taking casualties because they were fighting "Extremists" at the same time? They were ..
#9 Is it possible that Pakistan felt Binladen was innocent of involvement regarding 911 attacks.?
#10 Conservitive estimates say 120,000 innocent civilians are dead since the war began. Do you think that could cause another mass of family, friends etc to seek revenge for the deaths and hate the US forever?
#11 What are we going to do? Kill everyone there based on the word of the biggest liars on the planet? (CIA)

Originally posted by CherubBaby
Hello again. Well I read all your post and there is so much that is still to be looked at. I have a few questions and I will give my answers.

Sorry bout the wall of text.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#1 Do you think the wars have kept terrorists' out of the US. If so how ?

Yes - By engaging them in the manner we do they are forced to allocate resources to defend their HQ so to speak in a bunch of countries, including Afghanistan. The war on terror doctrine is to go after them wherever they may be. Its not limited to just Iraq or Afghanistan.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#2 Why is The CIA flying the drones?

The same reason the military does - intelligence gathering with the capability to employ weapons. Question - Why do countries place satelites in orbit?

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#3 Do you in anyway shape or form believe that The CIA is going to admit any mistakes or wrong doing on there part when someone makes a mistake and kills the wrong people?

No to the civilian question. However the Obama administration will appologize for killing a terrorist.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#4 If you will take a guess for me and tell me , Lets say there were 100% of these extremists i.e. terrorists' at the start of the wars, What % do you believe are still left or have been killed?

To be honest I have no idea. How many deaths were the result of the Taliban / Al Queida / Sharia law results / etc that have been blamed on the US / West?

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#5 Do you really think it is possible ever eliminate and kill all of them?

Nope - The driving force behind al queida and the Taliban is based on an idea. Its close to impossible to eliminate an idea. Whether we kill 100 or 1 million terrorists, the idea will still be there for others to pick up and move forward. Neo Nazi groups come to mind, picking up the idea Hitler left behind.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#6 What would you do as a civilian if The Us was accused of terrorism and invaded by another countries army .

Honestly it depends. The key point is the phrase "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Chances are if it ever got that bad the military and law enforcement would be enforcing the against all enemies portion.

As a side note your hypotheical has actually occured. During the revolutionary war, the colonies went to war with the British, who viewed the colonists as traitors and terrorists. The British invaded to end the rebellion while the French supplied weapons and advisors.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#7 Would you consider yourself a terrorist or extremist for defending America and Americans ?

It would depend on the situation. Not trying to deflect this question btw. That is a big what if.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#8 Why would Pakistan hide Binladen and at the same time have their army taking casualties because they were fighting "Extremists" at the same time? They were ..

All politics are local. The US views them as terrorist where as the Pakistani government views them as subversives and a threat to the government.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#9 Is it possible that Pakistan felt Binladen was innocent of involvement regarding 911 attacks.?

Sure - However if that was the case then why didnt pakistan announce their position to the outside world? Secondly the actions were against the US, on US soil, resulting in the death of US citizens (and other countries). We have a right to prosecute, just as Pakistan stated when they arrested the US consular offical who had diplomatic immunity.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#10 Conservitive estimates say 120,000 innocent civilians are dead since the war began. Do you think that could cause another mass of family, friends etc to seek revenge for the deaths and hate the US forever?

Yes and No -
Yes because in that part of the world the people arent able to access alternative sources of information.
No because it does not take into account how the civilian died. Al Queida / Taliban have killed civilians, which in turn were blamed on the US.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
#11 What are we going to do? Kill everyone there based on the word of the biggest liars on the planet? (CIA)

Are extremist muslims going to kill everyone who doesnt agree with them and their view?

Kind of dramatic on the biggest liars comment. It takes 2 to tango as well. People seem to forget about the
embassy bombings in Africa, the USS Cole and the first world trade center attack. Al Queida even tried to assasinate President Clinton at a conference in Manilla, Phillipines.

The US is not the only country who lies, and I think we are far from biggest liars. Check out China.

reply to post by Xcathdra


So The Us really isn't safer because there is an unending supply of new fighters in that area of the world right? So this war has accomplished nothing.in a practicle sense. The only thing that is being done to keep terrorists out of the US is the airport security . The US could have beefed up airport security and arranged satilite security checkpoints at the major airports with some diplomacy throughout the "Hotspots" terminals in various countries and would have saved trillions and innocent lives not to mention our men and women in uniform. Not to mention or legacy to the world and our children. This going to break the back of The American People. Not the back American Govt. It already is!!!!!!

Very interesting dialogue with some knowledgeable people. I'm still truly unclear on what the CIA is doing handling the drones. That should come under the military. With continued collateral damage it really takes it out of the realm of an assassination which has been the unspoken realm of this clandestine service. The military has protocols in place. Or is this the same warrantless wiretap nonsense again. Where a few ultra paranoid individuals are allowed to be judge, jury and executioner?

Are you sure it's not Beavis and Butthead thinking it's just a video game?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
I'm still truly unclear on what the CIA is doing handling the drones.

Long story short - The operations of the CIA will almost always fall under National security. The operating guidelines in place for civilian law enforcement, military and the CIA are completely seperate from each other and are all governed under completely differen set of rules and requirements.

The CIA is about the only group im familiar with that can classifiy its operations to the extent that files wont see the light of day. With compartmentalized need to know clearence, its easy to break up the operation enough where no one person has all the puzzle pieces. So on the off chance courts or congress get invovled, any person they question can say they dont know and it would be truthful.

All under the guise of National Security, which even courts have had issues dealing with (closing the court room, removing all monitoring equipment and the parties invovled signing NDA forms along with an education on the National Security Act and what it is, and the punishments that go with it).

Dont get me wrong, I dont agree with the majority of secrets our government feels compelled to keep away from the public eye. However, in some instances, doing harm to another is going to be unavoidable, and in some instances, required.

During the cold war the Soviet Union spent a lot of time training its officer corps on how a confrontation with the US might play out. The one conclusion that most came to, and found frustration with, was US military doctrine. They noted that even though the US has a doctrine for war, that doctrine is generally thrown out the window by field commanders when conditions warrant it. What irritated the Soviets even more was the ability of field commanders to "interpret" orders, which the Soviet doctrine would never allow.

We see that today with the Us military, as well as the CIA.

reply to post by CherubBaby


I wouldnt say that America is not safer. The 9/11 incident did cause a fundamental shift in intelligence operations and well as information sharing between domestic agencies and the CIA/etc.

When a country is used to the norms, going to the airport, walking in, breezing through security with family who is there to see people off, its difficult to adapt to major changes.

Trying to change the mindset of a few hundred million people in a few short years is improbable, but not impossible. The same applies to terrorist groups as well.

If there is to be a lasting peace, our generation is going to have the most difficult time accepting the changes needed to move eyond where we are now.

What keeps me going is the knowledge that humanity has always been able to overcome and adapt. Enemies become friends, friends become family, etc etc etc.

It wont happen overnight, and any movement from here on out must come from the people. People must get invovled in government, and stay invovled to hold people accountible and fire them for doing a bad job, or holding them accountible and voting them back into office for doing an outstanding job.

The changes we need MUST come from the people, not the government. The people MUST be the moral compass, not the government.