Scary shit and unfortunately not limited to one party or administration I'll bet. I just scanned it MM. Does this make the president (both W and O) possible war criminals? It seems at least president Obama has been very involved.
This shouldn't be a partisan discussion. There was no real debate about the use of drones and it was presented as a cheap, painless and effective means to fight terrorists after the troubles in Iraq and Afganistan. Maybe only @red55 , the president and John McCain believe drone strikes only kill bad guys but as noted here the intelligence gathered and the strikes aren't close to being surgical hits on known targets. Too many chances of faulty intelligence bad targeting and collateral damage exist to make this any different than bombing from 15,000'. Does this mean there are no good choices in this fight? Perhaps but it does mean there are no easy choices and a full discussion is needed before choices are made.
Covert war is like this and always has been. We can't be bashful and accomplish anything. War crimes are about intentional genocide and this is far from that. Civilian casualties are going to happen in war, especially in a guerrilla war where the enemy hides behind the skirts of his women and children. I don't see a problem with this. But he does make a good point about mission creep. We have built a huge network of covert airbases and forces involved to make this drone campaign work. Now that we have decimated Al Qaeda's leadership and much of the Taliban, we are moving on to lesser and lesser threats to the point that "we are going after street thugs" at great expense. This strikes probably don't make America safer at all, but instead create more martyrs and anti-American enemies from locals whose agenda had once been local. And we must be aware how the rest of the world views this. We complain about Putin when he interferes in Ukraine and Syria. Meanwhile we go where we want to go and kill who we want to kill. We violate sovereignty daily. We strike targets in 8 or 9 middle eastern countries weekly and keep a fleet of warship permanently stationed in the Mediterranean and India Oceans, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. We have about 30 bases in 10 middle eastern countries, all involved in overt and covert military operations for the last decade. I don't have a problem with that either, we are looking out for our best interests. But we can't be self-righteous when Russia does the same thing. It's a big world and we are the only Superpower. Even our allies fear what we are capable of doing. It is why our President must talk soothingly and proclaim our peaceful intentions while we covertly kill our enemies wherever they hide.
Fair points Red. I think the point is that there was apparently no discussion or real debate within the government and as you said mission creep was allowed to happen. When I say debate I don't mean a public debate in the media but in appropriately secret sessions of defense, legislature and executive branches. However knowingly taking civilians in strikes is not part of our heritage. Yes there can be collateral damage but in a limited war such as these, traditionally we have been very careful to reduce it as much as possible. Now it seems not so much on a per strike basis.
Well, the rules change when the enemy are international terrorists. They have no disregard for our civilians, in fact they target civilians and hide from our military.
I haven't had time to read the whole thing but I did read the one about the British muslim who we zapped with a drone. He got what was coming to him. He could have had a good life as a British citizen. Had a wife and 2 kids and his uncle got him a job as a plumber. He threw it all away to join al quada. I don't approve of much of what Obama does but I'm all for him or any other president doing whatever it takes to eliminate terrorists wherever in the world they are and no matter whether they are citizens or not. When you actively work to support our enemies you have forfeited your rights to the constitutional legal process. You're only right it the right to remain silent. Forever. Unless you are interrogated by us. Then you have the right to tell us everything you know. What I want to know is who runs this Intercept group and how do they come by this information. It's all very interesting but we really don't have the right to know all this and neither do they. They are compromising our operations and putting the lives of our operatives in jeopardy. If there is collateral damage done while killing terrorists so be it. We do our best to minimize the damage to bystanders but sometimes it happens. That is the nature of war. And we are in a war with Islamic terrorism.
I kind of have a people with the whole citizen thing. What's to stop an administration from falsifying information on a rival or someone they deem a threat to said administration and just droning some poor summabitch and say well he was a terrorist. If you are an American you should have you day in court. Or there should at least be a vote by congress or something.
