US drone strikes 'raise questions' - UN's Navi Pillay

Originally posted by neformore
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

Strawman and off-topic deflection.

Again, we're talking about the actions of the US here.

Why are you so intent on trying to deflect this topic into something its not?

Its not a straw man argument nor is it off topic. What I am doing is presenting a point of view from the opposite side of the fence, which you seem eager to ignore. Where is your, or the UN for that matter, outrage at the suicide bombings? Executions without due process or trial?

Yes yes the use of drones is "extrajudicial" according to people yet the opposing actions are not? If the argument is its their country and they can run it how they see fit, then the same applies towards the US, including the use of drones instead of special forces / military ground units.

Regardless of how you o the UN feels, we are at war, as authorized by Congress, with these groups. The whole point of the UN was to question the use of drone strikes and its legalities. What the UN is failing to do is explore the reason for the drone strikes in the first place. You cant look at drone strikes in terms of aftermath only. The reason for their use in the first place is being ignored.

Its like arguing that a person who shot and killed another person should be charged and tried for that action without ever first determing the reason for the action in the first place. If the UN wants to question the use of drone strikes and find issues with its use, that is fine, provided they place it into proper context while at the same time applying the exact same standards to the other parties involved..

Something they have failed to do from the start.

The UN is not responsible for the safety of US citizens, the US government is.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Its not a straw man argument nor is it off topic. What I am doing is presenting a point of view from the opposite side of the fence, which you seem eager to ignore. Where is your, or the UN for that matter, outrage at the suicide bombings? Executions without due process or trial?

You think I'm not outraged at suicide bombings and executions without trial?

Why on earth would you think that? Because it simply doesn't suit your argument that I am? Because I don't type it in every other sentence? Because I'm capable of seperating out logic from bias maybe?

Did it not occur to you - obviously not, actually - that the reason I'm raising this is because I AM outraged at such things?

What is killing someone by missile strike from a drone if not execution without trial?

And when its done without warning, or chance to lay down arms and surrender - whats the difference between it and a suicide bomb attack that kills indiscriminately without warning?

When you ignore due process, and turn murderous vigilante, you become as bad as those you condemn.

reply to post by neformore

What is killing someone by missile strike from a drone if not execution without trial?

Defense.

Trials are for prosecution of a crime committed. Defense is a much more time-sensitive operation that cannot afford such luxuries.

And when its done without warning, or chance to lay down arms and surrender - whats the difference between it and a suicide bomb attack that kills indiscriminately without warning?

The difference is the target.

A suicide bombing often targets markets filled with civilians and people simply going about their life in a peaceful manner.

A rocket from a drone targets individuals satisfying the ROE for hostile intent.

Whether there is a drone in the sky or a man on the ground - the ROE is the same. The drone engages a target according to the same ROE. Few of those SOPs involve contact with a suspected hostile individual (depends upon where this is taking place - a check-point that deals with a considerable amount of civilian traffic is going to have different SOPs from a convoy running through the countryside).

When you ignore due process, and turn murderous vigilante, you become as bad as those you condemn.

A flawed sentiment.

The problem is not a vigilante who exterminates a violent gang. Even if a few "not so bad" individuals die "unnecessarily" - the individual is not a problem to society.

The problem arises when said vigilante cannot return from the 'mission' and begins to lose the ability to use discrimination in passing judgment on individuals.

It often takes a measure of violence to put a stop to violence. IE - it takes a killer to stop a killer. The difference between a 'good' killer and a 'bad' killer is the ability and willingness to function in a 'normal' capacity.

the ARMED drones are coming to the US
so any one who condones this treatment is going to get it right in the face (just like the rest of us )
(because ALL YOUR GUNS WON"T HELP YOU )

remember Nazi germany?
the brownshirts got it right at the start as soon as they were no longer needed
minions take note

If the US drone killed your family in your country?
this just guarentees that you will be fighting TERRORISM over here...
The terrorist US government will have YOU fighting for YOUR life
and you will loose....

and all because this TERRORIST Banker stolen US government was't stopped OVER THERE
(technically anyone who supports this tactic of killing the innocent is the opposite of a patriot...)

reply to post by neformore

The drones are being used on a weekly basis still to destroy "targets of opportunity" in Pakistan, despite the Pakistani's asking for it to stop.

They claim to not be hostile. That being the case - perhaps they should do something about the hostile forces basing out of their country. "Targets of opportunity" would include the mortar strikes I talked about - as well as anything perceived as a credible impending attack.

The use of drones will not stop by their empty words. It will stop when the hostile forces stop. It's really quite simple.

The only complicated aspect of it is the fact that Pakistan's government is kinda-sorta-not-really in charge. The governments in the middle east have little in common with Western governments. They are super-sized tribal alliances that have less power than the Continental Congress.

Why are you referring to this in the past tense? Its very much happening now.

Literary convenience, really. I was speaking from memory - where I tend to use past-tense. I use present tense when speaking from issues currently applying to my life.

The basic problem is that you approach this issue in a civilized manner.

It's not a civilized problem. You cannot presume innocence - because there is no such thing as innocent within our criteria and culture.

There are no cameras allowed in the part of the free zone we are at. Our compound also has a no camera policy. When our rotation took over - there were countless people who tried to sneak cameras in. Why? Maybe they wanted pictures of the ships. Maybe it was just an act of defiance - mischief, if you will.

I don't get the feeling any of them intended harm to us - but it's pretty clear that they will do what they are allowed to get away with.

reply to post by Danbones


You're a vocal one.

The terrorist US government will have YOU fighting for YOUR life
and you will loose....

Drones require a substantial strategic, tactical, and logistical support structure manned by people. The drones have to be maintained, refueled, and resupplied by people. The fuel they make has to be shipped. The weapons they fire have to be manufactured and shipped. The courses they fly have to be mapped by people and the air stations staffed/maintained by people.

If all of these people are from the U.S... and the 'government' wants to go about using them against its people... how is it going to convince the people supporting these drones that strikes against their friends and family are justified?

Give that one a little critical thought before hitting your caps lock key again.

perhaps you missed this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
the relevent docs are in there
kinda makes it look like you have no clue about what you are driviling about


aNDI'LLHITMYCAPSLOCKWHENEVERIWANT


ps AIM Are you one of the people who helped kill Pat Tillman?


oh look
another cool thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...&flagit=848906

reply to post by Danbones

perhaps you missed this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
the relevent docs are in there
kinda makes it look like you have no clue about what you are driviling about

I'm sorry, I forgot to introduce myself.

I'm Aim-64C, Aviation Electronics Technician, Petty Officer Second Class, United States Navy.

Let me assure you - I've seen what goes into the operational, intermediate, and depot maintenance of aircraft and their underlying systems. I have first hand experience with the chain of command structure and the commands operating the drones.

While there are better subject matter experts on the topic of aviation logistics and maintenance out there - I'm probably the best of the active members on this forum.

What was it you were saying about useless drivel? The point was lost in your own.

reply to post by Aim64C

you say( I don't believe your introduction)
I posted references
mil docs at that


just for starters smartboy:

Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office in Texas told The Daily that his department is considering using rubber bullets and tear gas on its drone

The use of potential force from drones has raised the ire of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It’s simply not appropriate to use any of force, lethal or non-lethal, on a drone,” Catherine Crump, staff attorney for the ACLU, told CBSDC.

Crump feels one of the biggest problems with the use of drones is the remote location where they are operated from.

washington.cbslocal.com...


ETA
but you already know all this you are an xpert

reply to post by Aim64C


I feel sure then that you've heard of DARPA. You must also know that they aren't all about fluffy cuddly toys. They and others even nastier than they are have all sorts of toys that you guys don't get to play with. Those toys bear a more than passing resemblance to any sci-fi book you might remember reading in your youth. I assume you read that sort of thing, right?

I feel absolutely certain that there are drones that don't ask any questions whatsoever. I'm just waiting for the announcement that some weapon that was meant to do A, B, and C is now doing X, Y, and Z and it doesn't want to talk to us anymore. You know what I mean?

Be careful who you call "Master". Remember whose side you're on.

reply to post by CosmicEgg


Taking a "ride" from CosmicEgg's post, not that big leap to offtopic, helps illustrate what breaks through cracks... you then wonder what they never publish or classify for decades.

---------

Here's an example of military research, not on drones, but makes the point... while many discount such thing as pseudoscience or deny any such effect as a possibility...

The military I think deeply knows that any experimental results depend on interpersonal variation and adeptness.

On qi/biofield/bioenergy/biophysics/quantum biology/bioelectromagnetism etc so called fringe fields of science by likes of Randi

One of the authors( Juliann G. Kiang ) of the Springer literature paper from 2005! comes from those 2 military research institutions

1 Department of Cellular Injury, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Bethesda MD USA

2 Department of Medicine Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Bethesda MD USA

3 Department of Pharmacology Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Bethesda MD USA

wrair-www.army.mil

www.usuhs.mil

Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry
Volume 271, Numbers 1-2 (2005), 51-59, DOI: 10.1007/s11010-005-3615-x

External bioenergy-induced increases in intracellular free calcium concentrations are mediated by Na+/Ca2+ exchanger and L-type calcium channel

Juliann G. Kiang, John A. Ives and Wayne B. Jonas

www.springerlink.com/content/p3g2228028ru8464/abstract/

Abstract

External bioenergy (EBE, energy emitted from a human body) has been shown to increase intracellular calcium concentration ([Ca2+]i, an important factor in signal transduction) and regulate the cellular response to heat stress in cultured human lymphoid Jurkat T cells. In this study, we wanted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms. A bioenergy specialist emitted bioenergy sequentially toward tubes of cultured Jurkat T cells for one 15-minute period in buffers containing different ion compositions or different concentrations of inhibitors. [Ca2+]i was measured spectrofluorometrically using the fluorescent probe fura-2. The resting [Ca2+]i in Jurkat T cells was 70 ± 3 nM (n = 130) in the normal buffer. Removal of external calcium decreased the resting [Ca2+]i to 52 ± 2 nM (n = 23), indicating that [Ca2+] entry from the external source is important for maintaining the basal level of [Ca2+]i. Treatment of Jurkat T cells with EBE for 15 min increased [Ca2+]i by 30 ± 5% (P le 0.05, Student t-test). The distance between the bioenergy specialist and Jurkat T cells and repetitive treatments of EBE did not attenuate [Ca2+]i responsiveness to EBE. Removal of external Ca2+ or Na+, but not Mg2+, inhibited the EBE-induced increase in [Ca2+]i. Dichlorobenzamil, an inhibitor of Na+/Ca2+ exchangers, also inhibited the EBE-induced increase in [Ca2+]i in a concentration-dependent manner with an IC50 of 0.11 ± 0.02 nM. When external [K+] was increased from 4.5 mM to 25 mM, EBE decreased [Ca2+]i. The EBE-induced increase was also blocked by verapamil, an L-type voltage-gated Ca2+ channel blocker. These results suggest that the EBE-induced [Ca2+]i increase may serve as an objective means for assessing and validating bioenergy effects and those specialists claiming bioenergy capability. The increase in [Ca2+]i is mediated by activation of Na+/Ca2+ exchangers and opening of L-type voltage-gated Ca2+ channels. (Mol Cell Biochem 271: 51–59, 2005)

Key words lymphoid cells - intracellular calcium - intracellular signal - calcium channel - Na+/Ca2+ exchanger - bioenergy

Most of the problems that people have with these drone strikes is in understanding the logic behind them employed by the American Government. So common is this that I now have a standard response which I will eventually get round to turning to into a full thread hopefully properly explaining the justification for the “targeted killings” until then all I will say is this.

The legal justification for these operations is very complex covering both domestic and international law. First of all it is important to realise that executive order 12333, which prohibits American sanctioned assassination is still applicable and in force. However during the Clinton administration following the attacks on the American embassies the language used was somewhat relaxed to make possible the “targeted killing” of terrorist suspects.

There is a difference between “targeted killing” and “assassination”, assassination usually refers to the act of murder of individuals by some kind of covert means usually as part of some kind of political agenda (the exact definition is a legal and academic midfield.). Assassination is still outlawed in America, however targeted killing is not seen as assassination because it is a killing that America argues has taken place in an act of self-defence. It can simply be put as an act of self-defence, much like a sniper on the battle field shooting at the enemy who is setting up a mortar firing position.

For me the logic that the Americans have applied hear is still tantamount to being wrong unless they know in advance that the individual being targeted for killing is planning an attack. I find it very hard to believe that it is possible they have this type of intelligence for every drone attack and therefore it is inevitable that some of these attacks are state sanctioned assassination in the guise of targeted killing.

The nationality of the individual killed in a “targeted killing” has no bearing on the legal justification in regards to the jurisprudence applied by the American government when it comes to neutralise terrorist threats.

In the case of Anwar Al-Awaki for example, the justification for this killing is that it was an act of self defence, which does not constitute assassination. It is an extension to the same morality that justifies a police officer shooting an armed and dangerous criminal who is going to kill innocent civilians. This comparison can be difficult to comprehend and I admit that it is a difficult concept to accept as being the morally right thing to do. Weather one believes this is the correct course of action is a personal judgement as currently the American administration is legally justified in its current use of covert drone strikes to neutralise perceived terrorist threats by successfully claiming that these operations are acts of self defence against an enemy of the state. It would be absurd to claim that each and every one of these drone strikes is legally justified in this way; however one would have to go through each individual operation and judge its legality, Al-Awaki was legal.

The issue of undertaking these operations on sovereign states is another issue that is just as complex. For the most part America has the blessing of the state in which the operation is taking place for example in Yemen. Pakistan however is a more difficult situation, for a while the pakistani’s publicly denounced and distanced themselves from the attacks but in private gave their consent. However after the raid against Bin Laden they have been publicly describing these attacks as a breach of international law and their sovereignty. To understand if these attacks are legal requires a in-depth knowledge of international law which is a somewhat abstract entity open to interpretation. These drone attacks will most likely use the same legal justification as say the attacks against Libya in the 1980’s.

reply to post by David134

terrorist [ˈtɛrərɪst] a
. a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon
b. (as modifier) terrorist tactics terroristic adj

I know you are not the only one on ATS guilty of this, nor are you the only one guilty of this on this thread but you CANNOT take a definition of terrorism out of a dictionary and then attempt to apply it in anyway. The actual definition of terrorism is immensely complicated and a copy paste job form an online dictionary does not mean that you have “defined terrorism” or that you can then use that definition to back up any of your arguments.

I have wrote a thread below that explains this in more detail, I have linked you below if you wish to read it, I just thought I should point out that a dictionary definition of terrorism is really not a reliable definition. Sorry I know you are not the only one who does this but right now its one of my pet hates the way people use the word “terrorism” with very little consideration for its meaning.
Defining Terrorism

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by jannerfish
US and partners operate under the legitimacy of a mass comfort zone. If it makes enough people feel cosy then legitimacy is secured, whatever the discomfort to those outside the zone.

And when people outside the zone are executed for dancing and singing at weddings because of an archaic religious belief / viewpoint? When you can launch attacks from within civilian populations because those civilians know if they object / challenge / complain they are going to be killed anyways by the Taliban / terrorists its not comfort, its terror.

We cannot not respond, and they know this, which is how the civilian body count gets run up.

Yet drone strikes by the US only seems to be the one on the UN's radar.

Here is something to think on and do it with sanity instead of sold out generalizations and propaganda.

It is illegal to murder anyone.

Those drones are used in countries where no war has been declared.

And they target civilians, first aid responders to those civilian casualties and then to really ensure that everyone knows they are deliberately targetting said civilians and declaring their right to murder without oversight, they show up at the funerals and murder civilians yet again.

AND YOU CONDONE THIS AND CALL THIS SELF DEFENSE>>>>

The difference is only in who does the attacking. In my own mind terrorism is only commited by people rather than a State or recognized country or military. Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist. Iran is not. if Iran sends someone to attack another country no matter what the target or what weapon is used, it is an act of war not terrrorism.

reply to post by Unity_99

It is illegal to murder anyone

if by murder you mean the taking of another life then not it’s not illegal in every circumstance including this.

And they target civilians, first aid responders to those civilian casualties and then to really ensure that everyone knows they are deliberately targetting said civilians and declaring their right to murder without oversight, they show up at the funerals and murder civilians yet again.

Prove it, prove to me and everyone else that they have officially endorsed such a policy that says they can indiscriminately kill innocent civilians.

Yes civilians die, its collateral damage, it is highly regrettable and nobody on either side wants it to happen because its bad news for both sides. But it’s a unfortunate inevitability, I don’t like it either but it happens.

AND YOU CONDONE THIS AND CALL THIS SELF DEFENSE

You might not like it but it is justified by the Government as an act of self-defence which I have explained in one of my above posts. You can disagree with that as a justification all you want, I personally think that for the most part it is a reasonable justification. By killing these terrorists they are defending national security.

If you disagree, I respect your opinion.

Ok so the UN has a problem with the US drone operations...now what?

It just might be a sideshow to show the rest of the world that UN is just as concerned all the while they agree behind the closed doors with the US. Just a thought.

reply to post by Xcathdra


So in other words, terror gives us right to answer it with terror?

Interesting...

My friend, you and I won't see exactly eye to eye on this matter... but I think there is a middle ground we're both likely to accept.

When the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights makes a public statement; it is thoroughly vetted by many technocrats, and sadly, her objections are sound.

Because of the ferocity of American media manipulation and narrative kidnapping, we cannot expect the average "news" consumer to understand the gravity of a key phrase she uttered. I start at this perspective because some must eventually resort to 'calling a spade a spade' and recognize that most replies you have received so far are consistent with the obfuscation (either by deliberate acceptance or by rational acquiescence) which your establishment AND mine have injected into the debate.

Note the recurrence of the meme of the nature and definition of "terrorism." and the ancillary conversations this spawns because of the idea of 'justification.' This seems to be overlooked by many, but the doctrine of "distinction and proportionality" are matters of international law and compliance with treaties regarding the use of military force.

From Wiki:

Distinction and proportionality are important factors in assessing military necessity in that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective.

We have visited this argument before .."distinction and proportionality" back in the first Gulf war.... (my time).

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[3] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

Ultimately, this entire question surfaces (again and again) because of one simple fact:

Regardless of the posturing of the politicians and technocrats who are the ultimate "source" of information - it is evident that you cannot "wage war" on "terrorists" anymore than you can "wage war" on criminals.

We are deploying hundreds of millions of dollars in hardware to stage full-on high explosive attacks on "individuals" ... it is not reasonable to consider this "proportional" .... as a result (from that premise) the matter of distinctions falls apart...

As example... hyperbolic question (bear with me): "Had it been possible, would it have been proportional to drop a nuclear weapon on the known whereabouts of Adolph Hitler during World War II?"

The answer to some will be a distinct "no." and for others a distinct "yes." Hence .... in order to address the potential for abusive exploitation of circumstance the concept became an important legal distinction in the determination of the rules of war. Someone has to justify their actions and "the ends justifies the means" is a destructive and foolhardy axiom to live by.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Terrorism is a global policing matter... it is not military. Military engagement is about international conflict NOT policing handfuls of sadistic executors of extremism.

Unfortunately, in America, and every other "western" nation, the leadership culture embraces the 'variable constant' definition game, where they can say a spade is "not" a spade; the definition of "is" comes into question, and "Fast and Furious" is a synonym for anything but "Fast and Furious."

They use psychological manipulation and social engineering to this end.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by neformore

 

The difference would be the UN is incapable of doing anything about the suicide bombers. In case people have not noticed the UN goes after the parties that have law and order while ignoring / remaining inactive against those who do not. Its like going after the US because of our no food stance towards North Korea. Its easier to go after us rather than the North Korean Regime.

If the UN did more to prevent terrorism and engage those countries that harbor and fund it we wouldnt need to invoke article VII to defend ourselves against it.

While I recognize their lofty goals of human rights are admirable, its nothing more than a joke. They are concerned about our drone strikes yet remain silent on those killed by the Taliban for singing and dancing at a wedding? For protesting in Syria and Dubai..... They will go atfer Israel and her policies yet remain silent on the policies of Hamas, Hezzbullah, Lebanon, Iran Syria etc etc...

The UN either needs to act in a consistent manner or it needs to find another country to leach of off. I am a bit tired of the US bearing the brunt of financial and military burdens while at the same time being the brunt of their indigination and criticism.

You literally have no shame.

You know why the UN doesn't do anything? Because the US and other military superpowers are already doing something. You know what they're doing? They're bombing civilian populations with drones and other munitions. Oh, I'm sorry, it's only an "unfortunate accident" when that happens.. because we all know incompetence is a valid means of defense.

I suppose your argument is that the UN should "piss on the burning man", so to speak?