Stanford-NYU Report: Drone Attacks Illegal, Counterproductive 362
trbdavies writes "In 'Living Under Drones,' investigators from Stanford and NYU Law Schools report on interviews with 130 people in Pakistan about U.S.-led drone attacks there, including 69 survivors and family members of victims. The report affirms Bureau of Investigative Journalism numbers that count '474 to 884 civilian deaths since 2004, including 176 children' while 'only about 2% of drone casualties are top militant leaders.' It also argues that the attacks violate international law and are counterproductive, stating: 'Evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the U.S. an enemy.'"
What % always considered us the enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Without the baseline information the summary is clearly propaganda.
Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they don't want to get slaughtered they shouldn't live in Pakistan.
Or at the very least, they shouldn't invite militant leaders into their homes.
What did they expect? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok I will rephrase the question. How many considered USA their enemy before the drone attacks?
Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
And it would help to stop being brown and start worshipping Jesus.
Jesus was brown.
The US and law (Score:5, Insightful)
If the US was interested in following the spirit (if not the letter) of the law, then you wouldn't have things like "Special Rendition". That the US use drone attacks in a country where it doesn't even have a "police action" going on is not surprising. This is just an example of the "Same ol' same ol' ..Ends justifies the means" that has been used for decades (if not since the beginning of the 20th century).
.. I know .. anti-american foreigner and all that. Been there, heard the criticism and got the free T-shirt. But if you won't listen when your friends say "Woooo dude .. that's way out of line there", then pretty soon you aren't going to have any friends left.
And yes
Other opinions (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand the Pakistan Military allowed the US to use Pakistani airbases for the drone strikes until 8 months ago, requested increased use of drone attacks in 2008, still offer tacit support for the drone attacks, and have themselves said most of those killed in drone strikes were terrorists [dawn.com], despite the political inconvenience of admitting this (by contrast, Pakistan always denied their connection to terrorists working against India in Kashmir, even when the connection was obvious).
The souring of relations with Pakistan centers on the raid on bin Laden, and just the natural friction between the US and a nation with a record of selling nuclear secrets on the black market, supporting the Taliban, and supporting terrorist actions against India.
Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (Score:4, Insightful)
What surprizes me is that the CIA/DOD are using Drones, maybe for future readyness? I'm ask the question, "which is cheaper? Drone Kill Logistics? Or 1,000,000 iPads with free connection service?" The one method works and makes a lot of noise, but the other REALLY WORKS, and makes more noise.
Illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are fighting a war against terrorists, and you play by the rules, and they don't, you are going to lose.
Drones are cheaper. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maintaining the network would be impossible. The Taliban (or whoever) just kills the family of whoever is supposed to do the tech work to keep the network up.
Re:Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like (Score:2, Insightful)
If the Pakistanis Muslims respect the Christians, why do they persecute the Christian minorities in their country?
'Cause you know, Muslims would never be persecuted in our country.
(Or Sikhs that the hate-mongers are too stupid to realize aren't Muslims.)
Re:Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that there are people in Texas (presumably they can find it on a map) who fervently believe all muslims are innately enemies of the US. There are people in California that believe this. By lumping everyone together they presumably lump Pakistan and Taliban together. Islam has replaced communism as the bogeyman used to get voters anxious and pliable.
Re:Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the Pakistani government an enemy of the US and often works against US interests?
Yes.
Is the Pakistani government an ally of the US that shares intelligence with the US and often allows US military to operate on Pakistani soil?
Yes.
Isn't that schizophrenic?
Yep.
Like the US, Pakistan has an elected government. Unlike the US, it has governmental organs that aren't fully under the control of civilian elected officials. The Pakistani military and intelligence services are independent national institutions (Egypt is this way as well) and within those institutions you have various fiefdoms and power centers. The Egyptian military is this way as well, almost forming a distinct society within the society with its own economic and social welfare programs.
Imagine you have a country governed by warlords. There might be some order of precedence or honor which theoretically unifies the country, but still some of the those warlords might be your "friends" and others your enemies. There's nothing mystifying about that. Now imagine those petty rulers aren't warlords who control territory, but bureaucrats that control various state functions. It's not that different.
Re:Immoral and counter-productive, yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
The report says "current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents." Killing people the government deems inconvenient, with no oversight, legal process or warning, and collateral damage to boot, might not be strictly illegal but it's certainly against the spirit of both US and international law and custom,and sets a dangerous precedent.
Re:Illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
And this right here folks is why Americans shouldn't be allowed at the grown-ups' table.
Yes you can "play by the rules" and get the right result. In fact, in Ireland it was only once the British really stopped breaking the rules and adopted a more respectful pose that they made progress. Not playing by the rules just gives ammunition and recruits to your opponents - after all they're painting you as the aggressor here.
How many civilian casualties would have been OK for a drone strike on Timothy McVeigh? Should the Brits have bombed areas of Belfast? How about some extraordinary rendition for anyone who gave money to NORAID (a US based fund directly given to the IRA)?
Drone strikes like these don't reduce the number of enemies - they increase them. Every innocent civilian killed (and they are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty) is a klaxon call to take up arms. When fathers and brothers are killed, who do you think people turn to when they need a new guiding figure in their lives? Would you accept the deaths of your spouse and children because they were in the same region as a terrorist?
Acting like you're some kind of cowboy sheriff isn't going to fix things. This isn't the wild west - it's a country of hundreds of millions of people. Going in guns blazing just makes you the enemy to more and more people, and all the time the terrorists can hold up pictures of the dead innocents as proof that you are the indeed the great Satan that they claim.
You know there are two reasons why the police get hauled over the coals when they break the rules. The first is that people, even guilty ones, have rights. But the second reason is to protect the police themselves: Once they are seen to be corrupt their legitimacy shatters. When this happens they lose the support of the ordinary people, who will stop complying with them. This leads to a total breakdown of law and order, as has been seen countless times across (eg) African nations.
So play by the rules. Breaking them is immoral, it is repugnant, and even worse than all that: It doesn't work.
Re:Persecution of Christians (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I don't understand your point. Let's say you are completely correct; so what? Aren't we, as Americans, supposed to hold ourselves to higher standards of behavior, particularly in terms of tolerance of different races and belief systems? Saying that a militant theocracy acts in a certain horrific way doesn't mean we get to act that way, too;. it means that it's a good thing we're not a militant theocracy. Additionally, criticizing another nation for not adhering to our standards of behavior seems pointless to me, while criticizing ourselves for the same reason seems like a good idea.
What am I missing?
Re:Persecution of Christians (Score:4, Insightful)
His point is that drawing equivalency between persecutions of Muslims in the US vs. Christians in Pakistan is ridiculous. Calling drone actions by the gov't as persecution of Muslims when civilians are hit is illogical as well, as Christians can just as easily be "collateral damage"
Re:Justified (Score:5, Insightful)
*gets asbestos suit on, affixes thermally resistant aluminum tape hat*
By that reasoning, it could be stated "I don't feel sorry for 'civilians' working for the financial entities behind the abuses in our country"
Just thought I should point that out. The twin tower destruction plan was a strategic one, as well as a terrorist attack. Bin Laden may have been an assfuck, but he wasn't a completely stupid one. He chose the trade center because it was a symbol of american led international business activity; something he directly associated with the continuing problems he saw in his part of the world.
The (suspected) muslims in this thead are right: the problem is the US's insatiable desire to control foriegn markets to hold up a faulted domestic business model. That model? "Cheap energy and heavy consumerism are A-OK, and need to continue forever, no matter what the price."
Want to see the hate in the middle east dry up? Multilateral withdrawl of all financial and military interests in the middle east by *all* western powers.
They will exhaust their resources, and poof... dry up and blow away.
The US won't get as many terrorists, we won't have to keep killing brown people, and things will be way better politically.
Oh, but then it would cost you 10$/gal to fill your hummer?
What a shame.
Re:Persecution of Christians (Score:4, Insightful)
Eh, the thing is, Pakistani christians are just as pakistani as anyone else. Just as native. A family may have been Christian since before Mohammed. It's not right to imply they should leave, particularly when many may have no practical option to leave, but even if they all did - would you leave your homeland like that? That line of thought is all wrong.
Now that said, I dont think it is the duty or the legitimate business in any way of the US to go around trying to dictate how other countries work. If I were in the government I would be very careful with my words as a result. But as a private citizen I dont need to do that and I do find religious discrimination anywhere, against anyone, unacceptable, and thus I find your defense a bit offensive.
Re:Persecution of Christians (Score:0, Insightful)
Nah, you are using your brain and not drinking the kool-aid.
Taco Cowboy often takes stories which show how brutally we are treating Muslims and tries to justify this violence by claiming Christians have it 'worse'. As if a drone attack against a Pakistani Muslim somehow balances out the bad karma of a Christian being harassed by Muslims.
Taco's stance doesn't make sense, it has a clear pro-Christian bias, and it is just plain ignorant. It doesn't matter what your faith is, normal people know killing is wrong. Taco wants to find an exception for that, showing he isn't much of a good Christian at all!
He's a Republican, which is why he's fearful of the media, believes in world-wide conspiracies, and supports the idea of killing Pakistani Muslims with drones. Just what you'd expect from the party of "fear and ignorance". Which is precisely why his views on morality and religion as as flawed as they are.
Re:Drones are cheaper. (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot, the vast majority I'd say of those military bases were requested by the host nation. Those countries want our military invested in their region as a preventative measure to keep their neighbors peaceful. I'm sure the bases also keep those countries on their toes regarding US relations as well.
Re:Justified (Score:3, Insightful)
The twin tower destruction plan was a strategic one, as well as a terrorist attack.
Or because it was vulnerable to a plane impact? Or because it contained a high concentration of Jews? You assume too sophisticated tought of these goatherders. Now American economic pressure can be a problem, but especially the Middle East is very good at resisting it (at least until they are offered a sufficient price). The OPEC is quite independent from the US and had many conflicts with it.
Want to see the hate in the middle east dry up? Multilateral withdrawl of all financial and military interests in the middle east by *all* western powers.
Sure, it worked well for the French to stay out of Iraq...oh wait, it didn't [wikipedia.org]. You are very naive if you rely on the terrorists to stop of their own goodwill. Terrorists don't want to end the war because that's the reason of all the influence they have. Why don't you think Gaza wants peace with Israel? Because the terrorists will stay in power for only as long as there is a war.
They will exhaust their resources, and poof... dry up and blow away.
You think the West is their only costumer? Russia and China will happily maintain relations with them and supply them with more then enough guns. They will continue to emigrate to the West and try to kill our civilians because we don't let them eradicate Israel or because of some made-up reason like this film now.
Re:Persecution of Christians (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if he is right, but I believe that is his point.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except you don't win anything by murdering a few innocent people here and there. All you do is sully your reputation and make enemies. If you want to win a war, this drone thing is as retarded as it gets, not to mention fucking immoral. It makes the US nothing but a terrorist bully.
Re:Persecution of Christians (Score:2, Insightful)
Refraining from deploying flying death robots and killing/rendering/torturing anyone who looks at you funny is not "appeasement".