×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Stanford-NYU Report: Drone Attacks Illegal, Counterproductive

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the program-considered-a-success dept.

The Military 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.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

362 comments

74% of Pakistanis now consider the U.S. an enemy. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457507)

Well, I guess it's time to hang up the drones, and dust of the ICBMs.

Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like US (0, Troll)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457837)

If the Pakistanis like USA so much, why do they harbour Al Queda and the Talibans?

If the Pakistanis Muslims respect the Christians, why do they persecute the Christian minorities in their country?

Besides, the so-called "survey" is carried out by the liberals who themselves harbour so much hatred to the US of A.

Re:Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457909)

If you want to see hatred of the USA, go to a Tea Party rally

Re:Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458103)

Dissatisfaction with the current incompetent administration != hatred of the USA

Re:Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like (1, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457939)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458041)

Right, because there is systematic and widespread persecution of Muslims in the USA. Stop drinking the koolaid, stop letting the media brainwash you, take your tinfoil hat off, and go outside and meet people. Even in Texas, in one of the most conservative towns (where I live), people have nothing but respect for Muslims.

Persecution of Christians (3, Informative)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458077)

If you really want to know how the Christian minority in Pakistan are being treated, here are some links you should explore:

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=2556 [pakistanch...anpost.com]

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=3659 [pakistanch...anpost.com]

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/vieweditorial.php?editorialid=23 [pakistanch...anpost.com]

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=3765 [pakistanch...anpost.com]

http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/pakistan/15560 [compassdirect.org]

All the above links are all based on what actually had happened. They are not propaganda.

Unlike the liberals in the US who lives on anti-US propaganda, the Christian minority in Pakistan have no luxury at all living in the world of propaganda.

Every single day of their lives they have to go through the gauntlet of threats and insults.

Every single day some one from their community got beaten up or killed or raped or forcibly converted into Islam.

Every single day in their lives tragedy happens.

But you do not get to read any of that in the main stream media, do you?

That is because the Western main stream media, - from New York Times to Le Monde of France, - are being controlled by the liberals who hate Christianity more than anything else.

They will not report any news on the persecution of the Christian minority in Indonesia or in Pakistan.

But if ever there is a single case of Muslim being hurt or killed, you bet on the next day those liberal controlled main-stream-media will have their BIG HEADLINE blaring "Evil Christian killing peace loving Muslims !!!"

Re:Persecution of Christians (5, Insightful)

Grygus (1143095) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458339)

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:Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like (2)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458139)

By "they" you mean every single Pakistani? May as well talk about Americans because "they" made that stupid video, "they" pissed all over dead bodies, and "they" treat the middle east like a video game. As for liberals if you think they hate the country then you're clearly listening to too many one editorialists masquerading as journalists and should go out and talk to actual Americans and realize that they can cover a diverse range of political views without "hating" their country. If the wife wants you to fix up the leaky pipes do you complain that she hates your house, or do you just realize instead that you don't live in a perfect house and want to make it better?

Re:Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458181)

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:74% of Pakistanis now consider the U.S. an enem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458229)

Well, I guess it's time to hang up the drones, and dust of the ICBMs.

No, it's time to cut your nuts off so you cannot reproduce,
because the world doesn't need idiotic human waste like you.

What % always considered us the enemy? (4, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457521)

Without the baseline information the summary is clearly propaganda.

Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457563)

It was zero before the big bad US caused trouble.

Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (4, Insightful)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457601)

Ok I will rephrase the question. How many considered USA their enemy before the drone attacks?

Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (3, Insightful)

LifesABeach (234436) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457787)

Cultural evidence implicates that if the Drones had only killed the single target in the group of people, that the people's views would not have changed much. What we have is a classic case of the Hatfields verses the McCoys. In Pakistan, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda are not the bad guys. The pervasive attitude is, "bin Laden, a hero, was murdered, and by the very people that made him a hero."

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.

Drones are cheaper. (4, Insightful)

raehl (609729) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457869)

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:Drones are cheaper. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458029)

Plz leave the children their little naive fantasies on how the world works.

Re:Drones are cheaper. (3, Interesting)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458227)

Number of countries the US has military bases in: 60-130, depending on who you believe.
Total number of foreign US military bases: on the order of 650.
Number of foreign countries who have military bases in the US: None, although command of NORAD changes between an American general and a Canadian general every 2 years. And we train a lot of foreign military at our bases here in the States.

And people wonder why the US spends more on 'defense' than the next 26 countries combined when 25 of them are nominally allies.

Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (4, Informative)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458351)

The pervasive attitude is, "bin Laden, a hero, was murdered, and by the very people that made him a hero."

Yep. That's the attitude. It has nothing to do with things like
"The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims." [guardian.co.uk]
because that's a minor detail no one would worry about.

Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (0)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457933)

It's irrelevant because the percentage of Muslims who consider USA enemy depends on to what extent it is in the political interest of Muslim clerics to make us the enemy, not on how many drone attacks we launched. At the bottom of it, the problem is Islam, an ideology that seeks to dominate and by design cannot peacefully coexist with any other.

Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (0)

Falconhell (1289630) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458287)

What a stupid post, you must be american. It is your countries constant interference in Muslim countries that causes the hate.
At the bottom of it, the problem is the US ideology that seeks to dominate and by design cannot peacefully coexist with any other.

FTFY

Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458429)

At the bottom of it, the problem is the US ideology that seeks to dominate and by design cannot peacefully coexist with any other.

If you knew anything about Islam (and religion in general) you would understand that this is true of their ideology as well. Domination or death: there's no middle ground when God's on your side.

And if you knew anything about 21st century technology, you would understand that there is no way that violent religionists of any stripe can possibly win. Drones are only the first toy the Pandora's box that Uncle Sam is going to open on these barbarians.

Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (1)

sl149q (1537343) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458199)

And how many after the recent YouTube video?

Pretty much anything can and will be used by various factions to garner support for their causes. Hatred is such a motivating force to get people on your side.

Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457623)

What percentage of Americans consider Pakistan our enemy?

Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458009)

Zero. Most don't care enough to have an opinion, the others can't find Texas on a map, let alone Pakistan. Everyone else knows the Taliban is not Pakistan.

Re:What % always considered us the enemy? (2, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458167)

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:What % always considered us the enemy? (1)

cdrnet (1582149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457951)

What % of them actually cared about us enough to consider us as enemy in the first place? That is, before the drone attacks?

US military doctrine is simple to understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457543)

If they don't want to get slaughtered they shouldn't live in Pakistan.

Or anywhere else which has been designated as a valid target state by the US...

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (2, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457569)

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.

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (4, Funny)

trout007 (975317) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457571)

And it would help to stop being brown and start worshipping Jesus.

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (4, Insightful)

dzelenka (630044) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457631)

And it would help to stop being brown and start worshipping Jesus.

Jesus was brown.

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457661)

I have seen people claim Jesus was Aryan, some claim Jesus was of black African decent, but have never heard of a brown Jesus theory.

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457731)

Duh, everybody knows when you combine black jesus and white jesus, he comes out brown!

Captcha was dueling. Apt comparison for how brown jesus came about.

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (2)

raehl (609729) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457875)

Duh, everybody knows when you combine black jesus and white jesus, he comes out brown!

Did they cut art classes in your school? Jesus was obviously grey.

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (3, Funny)

xevioso (598654) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458121)

To make Brown Jesus, you'd need to mix Red Jesus, Yellow Jesus, and Blue Jesus.

If you are making a watercolor Jesus, you'd need something like veridian Jesus and alizarin crimson Jesus mixed together. I'm not sure what the easiest RGB Jesus values would give you a Brown Jesus, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458211)

Er, brown is #944B00, so you only need Red and Blue. If you need a paler brown jesus, you are probably right, you need more red, blue and yellow
 
Sorry for the nitpick, but I just could ignore it.

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (2)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458365)

Christ had hair "like wool", which kinda' rules out that he looked anything like the 'white guy' in the pics shown in my catholic church.

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

"I was brought up Roman Catholic, until I reached the age of reason." - George Carlin

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457813)

Jesus wasn't a pasty skinned European Zionist Jew. He would've looked more like one of those young Palestinian men that get US made weapons pointed in their face by usurping zionist impostors occupying Palestine.

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (2)

ilguido (1704434) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457699)

Jesus was brown.

We can't know for sure. Judes are pretty white, many Levantines are pretty white, by the time Jesus was born there was a lot of Greek, Roman, Hittite and Galatian blood in the area. Arab and turkish invasions happened a few centuries later...

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458115)

All of whom would be "brown" to the average idiot who says stuff like the OP did.

Jesus more than likely didn't exist. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457703)

The evidence for the historical Jesus' existance is sketchy at best. Most likely he's a New Testament fiction.

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (2)

Empiric (675968) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457873)

It would help more for the so-called "Religious Right" to read what Jesus actually said about money and one's neighbor, and stop letting the Military-Industrial Complex run amok under its own financial inertia.

Re:US military doctrine is simple to understand... (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458367)

what the religious right do not understand is they are feeding the beast, they wont be counted a friend when christ comes back, the USA and Israel are both going to be in BIG trouble with the lamb of god

So let's see... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457575)

Of the 176,745,364 people in Pakistan (according to World Bank), they chose 130 and managed to get more than half who were related to the "474 to 884" people who've died. You know, I could continue to point out the problems here, but it doesn't seem necessary. This entire "investigation" is complete and utter bullshit.

Is KDawson back? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457583)

Such a thinly veiled attack on the Obama administration. Looks like Slashdot is back to their old tricks.

Re:Is KDawson back? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457735)

You are kidding, right? The administration you mention is vast. Because of a name, its entirety should be exempt from scrutiny? Surely you couldn't find any articles critical of previous dynasties, I mean administrations. Maybe you should slither back to the Pentagon VIP-Room and get another mouthful so that at least your words will ooze more than air from your sock. Puppet. You must be.

What did they expect? (1, Insightful)

stevez67 (2374822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457587)

They ask terrorists (the "victims" of the drone attacks) how they feel about drones and you get the expected response. The number of "civilian" casualties cannot be confirmed or even reliably estimated since the terrorists dress like civilians. This piece of alleged journalism comes from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism which is a highly euphemistically named organization that is about as fair and balanced as Fox News.

Justified (2)

bhinesley (1853036) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457751)

The number of "civilian" casualties cannot be confirmed or even reliably estimated since the terrorists dress like civilians.

That's right, they could all be terrorists. Best to just kill them all.

Re:Justified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458169)

The number of "civilian" casualties cannot be confirmed or even reliably estimated since the terrorists dress like civilians.

That's right, they could all be terrorists. Best to just kill them all.

There's what? 200 million people in Pakistan? Drone strikes have killed what? 1,000? At most?

Of the 130 Pakistanis interviewed, over half were directly related to someone killed in a drone strike?

Can you say, "non-representative sample"? Great. I knew you could.

Nice to know you learned something today, isn't it?

Re:Justified (0)

Falconhell (1289630) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458323)

There 300 million in the US and 9/11 only killed 3000, and thats ok by you then?
Can YOU say non representative sample?

Re:Justified (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458251)

I don't feel sorry for "civilians" hiding, feeding and arming terrorists. The local authorities could be a lot more effective with less collateral damage than drone strikes if they actually did something.

Re:Justified (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458335)

And that's why we dropped bombs on the tower block the DC sniper used to live in, killing his wife, kids and neighbors.

You're a fucking moron. You honestly think that all these civilians 1) know that there is a terrorist cell there, and 2) are able to stand up to the guys with machine guns and a willingness to kill them and their families?

The real terrorists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458035)

The real terrorists are the US military and their owners.

Re:What did they expect? (1)

Mitreya (579078) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458403)

They ask terrorists (the "victims" of the drone attacks) how they feel about drones and you get the expected response.

You sort of have a point here. Except for implying that entire Pakistan is comprised of terrorists without exception(?)
Should have stayed with "victim".

The number of "civilian" casualties cannot be confirmed or even reliably estimated since the terrorists dress like civilians.

And you totally lost it. Maybe true, but is sufficient justification to stop worrying about it??
How about US try to estimate the civilian casualties, instead of considering every adult male a "militant"?

Re:What did they expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458421)

Right. Those children were actually just terrorists grown a bit short.

Re:What did they expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458435)

People who have robotic killing machines hovering over their communities 24/7, raining down death and destruction without warning, are terrified. Would you put up with such terror tactics?

why wouldn't they? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457603)

When the guy who helped us find Bin Laden [nytimes.com] is stuck in jail, why would anyone want to help us out and be on 'our' side? There is no reason at all to support America, because they will not support you back when things get rough.

Re:why wouldn't they? (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457995)

When the guy who helped us find Bin Laden [nytimes.com] is stuck in jail, why would anyone want to help us out and be on 'our' side? There is no reason at all to support America, because they will not support you back when things get rough.

Also, if some foreign country had drones flying over my country blowing stuff up, I'd have a bit of trouble thinking kindly of them.

Re:why wouldn't they? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458209)

If Moscow starts bombing us, maybe they'll have a good reason. If they say they really intended to bomb Canada but the trainee got lost then we should thank them for realizing it was a mistake. We'll start eating more pirozhki and thank them for saving us from our Russian hating neighbors.

Re:why wouldn't they? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458263)

When the guy who helped us find Bin Laden [nytimes.com] is stuck in jail, why would anyone want to help us out and be on 'our' side? There is no reason at all to support America, because they will not support you back when things get rough.

Also, if some foreign country had drones flying over my country blowing stuff up, I'd have a bit of trouble thinking kindly of them.

Well, Taliban and Al Qaeda are using Pakistan as a base of operations in a shooting war in Afghanistan.

Either Pakistan WON'T stop that, which is an act of war, or Pakistan CAN'T stop that, which is a de facto loss of sovereign control over their territory.

Since the Taliban were and are Pakistani proxies, the truth is probably a lot closer to the "won't stop it".

Does that make Pakistan an enemy of the US? Not really - Pakistan is acting in what they think is THEIR best interest, being squeezed between China, India, and Iran.

Who was it that said nations don't have allies, they have interests?

So to change Pakistani behavior, you have to change there calculation regarding what's in their interests.

How to change Pakistan's interests? Work with India. Give the Pakistanis a list of Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders - a BIG list. For every week someone that list is alive and free, 1,000 more Indian troops arrive in Afghanistan. And they'll stay until India decides to bring them home.

In other words - tell Pakistan that if they want to keep playing with Islamist nutcases, they'll lose control of Afghanistan to the nearest and utterly hated rival. Permanently. And to stop that, the Pakistanis have to sell out and betray their proxies - to their death.

It's a video game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457619)

I always find the idea remote control killing to be the embodiment of what's wrong with humanity. So much technology, so much death.

Re:It's a video game (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457721)

So much technology, so much death.

People were killing each other when a rock lashed to a stick was considered "hi-tech."

If anything, technology is making war less bloody. Compare the casualties from these drone strikes to the bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, Osaka, etc.

Re:It's a video game (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458155)

Yes, because it is so much better and more humane when there is a person sitting in the aircraft that is bombing you from 20,000 feet.

The US and law (4, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457635)

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).
 
And yes .. 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.

Re:The US and law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458143)

Woooo dude, I don't know if you are out of line because I can't decifer what you are trying to say.

Re:The US and law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458187)

As an American I must tell you that I wasn't given a choice as to where I was born, nor can any of the common folk seem to affect the actions of our Government, nor am I allowed to leave the country. We're sorry for the state of things, but our forefathers overestimated us. The democratic-republic only works if A) The majority of the congress isn't corrupt, and B) The majority of voters aren't morons. So, we're doomed.

We are not our Armed Forces; I'm sorry for their actions, but can not control them. Please send help. We're being oppressed.

Other opinions (5, Insightful)

kamapuaa (555446) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457673)

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:Other opinions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457913)

And the growing suspicions that the Taleban and the ISI may not be that seperate.

They'll "admit" anything -- for a price (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458097)

"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, 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)."

Do you know why the Pakistani government "admit" this? Because it gets them military and financial support from the US.

Admitting the same in the case of Kashmir does not, since if the US was going to support any country in the Kashmir conflict, it would be India.

IT IS WIN + WIN !! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457691)

We win because there are fewer bad guys trying to kill Americans !! They win because they become martyrs, relocated to a land of milk and honey and naked women !! Win + Win !!

Re:IT IS WIN + WIN !! (1)

Khith (608295) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457895)

The only problem is that it does not reduce the number of "bad guys". If you bomb someone, their friends and family are going to be angry and take up arms against you. If you kill them too, THEIR friends and family will take up arms against you. You're literally creating enemies because they want revenge\justice. The better option is to stop killing them and withdraw our troops. They can't kill us if we aren't there. They'll still be angry and some may still take up arms against the US, but they'd have to come here to do that. This is what a military is meant to protect us from.

Imagine it this way: If a foreign country started using drones or occupying troops to kill people in the US that it considered to be dangerous, don't you think that we'd be angry? I would hope that Americans would be angry and fight back. How many of you would say "Oh well. They're killing our people, but it's none of my business."?

Re:IT IS WIN + WIN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457971)

Yeah, right, as if a convict condemned to death was your friend or family, upon said bad guy's execution, you, being the bad guy's friend or family, carry on in the executed footsteps. You are one twisted, watches-way-too-much-TV guy. But there does await you and land of milk and honey, and nake (wo)men.

Re:IT IS WIN + WIN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458161)

Bullshit. It most certainly does reduce the number of bad guys. We are killing the leaders and brains behind the terror groups. By your shitty logic, DUI road blocks may catch some drunks, but the stress of being pulled over might cause more people to drink. Disregarding the fact that the guys killed are the brains behind the Taliban, having them disappear in a futile ball of hot gas during a planning session, certainly acts as a deterent.

You might be right that alienating the population might reduce human intelligence, but guess what: we don't give a fuck. We can do this the easy way, or the hard way, for the rulers of Pakistan. It's up to them. The easy way is us going in and eliminating their competition from fellow islamists. The hard way is we NUKE the fuck out of Pakistan.

Let's be perfectly clear about this: this is not exactly an optional war. Pakistan -- right now -- is the biggest threat to America, bar none. Those terror groups leaders are also staging attacks against the government, and attacks on where Pakistani nuclear weapons are being stored. If you think -- even for a nanosecond -- that we would let some shred of Al Qaeda steal a Pakistani nuke or take over Pakistan, then you are out of your fucking mind.

Prodigy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457715)

Thanks, President Obama, for increasing the Predator drone program beyond Dick Cheney's wildest dreams. Thanks for keeping Habeas Corpus rolled back. Thanks for throwing your deep knowledge of the US Constitution into the toilet. You make Mr. Cheney proud.

Re:Prodigy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457807)

Common Tea Party shill. Bush goes after BinLaden and you guys cheer. Obama kills BinLaden and you guys all the sudden care about the law being broken. The man can't do anything right according to people like you. I bet if he were white you'd be singing a different tune.

Re:Prodigy (-1, Flamebait)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458059)

Obama didn't kill bin-Laden. The SEALs did and they were operating under orders from Bush which were never rescinded by Obama.

Re:Prodigy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458089)

Oh look, a false flagger making it about race since it's easy to discredit and make "liberals" "look stupid". Here you go, we'll discredit it and make you look stupid:

These are the people who whined about "wagging the dog" when Clinton tried to kill bin Laden.

These are the people who voted down Hillary's flag-burning law back when she was still just a congressperson.

It's not about race, they just whine like little bitches when their campaign stumps get cut off by the democrats.

Re:Prodigy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458151)

Yea, they might even give him a second Nobel Peace Prize.

Re:Prodigy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41457955)

Thanks, President Obama, for increasing the Predator drone program beyond Dick Cheney's wildest dreams.

Yeah, it's terrible that we're not putting pilots and ground forces at risk when a remote controlled robot can do the job.

Actually, it is terrible. Truly, war in its purest, economic form (at least for our side), but without risk and blood, we'll now never have the chance to end the military adventurism we've become so loved for.

Re:Prodigy (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458047)

Actually, it is terrible. Truly, war in its purest, economic form (at least for our side), but without risk and blood, we'll now never have the chance to end the military adventurism we've become so loved for.

They went us one better in an old episode of Star Trek.

The gov wants enemies (2)

future assassin (639396) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457777)

how else will the contractors make money?

Re:The gov wants enemies (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458333)

Simple, create fictional ones at home. Talk about sleeper terrorist cells right at home. You will literally have unlimited funding to defend the US from its own people. Security theater is still pretty small in the US, it can easily be a 100 billion dollar per year industry. If the security theater industry joins forces with the private prison industry, it can be even larger.

Illegal (3, Insightful)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457829)

If you are fighting a war against terrorists, and you play by the rules, and they don't, you are going to lose.

Re:Illegal (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458025)

If you are fighting a war against terrorists, and you play by the rules, and they don't, you are going to lose.

However, it does not follow from that that if you *don't* play by the rules you'll win.

At some point you have to stop and think about what's smart, rather than what you have the might and the "right" to do.

Re:Illegal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458031)

If you are fighting a war against terrorists, and you play by the rules, and they don't, you are going to lose.

And after we win, what will remain to distinguish us from them?

Re:Illegal (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458257)

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:Illegal (0)

Falconhell (1289630) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458349)

If you stop playing by the rules they have won. We are supposed to be better than that right........? Well we were before the US decided it had the right to kill any one anywhere without judicial process.

Immoral and counter-productive, yes. (4, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | about a year and a half ago | (#41457987)

"illegal", no. The aerial bombing (the bombers being unmanned is irrelevant) of Pakistan would be an act of war were it not being done with the permission of the Pakistani government (they are neither trying to shoot down the bombers nor filing official complaints with the UN). As it is being done with permission, it is legally a bilateral Pakistani and USA affair. It is, unfortunately, not a violation of USA law and evidently not a violation of Pakistani law either. Until the givernment of Pakistan tries to stop it by, at minimum, formally demanding that it stop it is not legally anyone else's business (which is not to say it is not wrong: it is).

Re:Immoral and counter-productive, yes. (3, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year and a half ago | (#41458233)

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.

ethics (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41458069)

what gives anyone the right to kill someone else in another country? I can understand taking out their weapons and if those people are actively defending the weapons then they are putting themselves in harms way, but I can't understand taking out leaders as human targets

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...