Sure. It saves us money to pay the private contractor $300k so they can pay him $100k versus the $60k he would earn as an officer..... or something like that. It's all math.

the drone pilots are not wearing the uniform of and are not enlisted in any organized military force during the period they are acting on the battlefield?

Wouldn't surprise me if in the end they started enlisting kids who play First Person Shooters to take the foot soldier drones into areas where "belligerents" are at. Belligerents have zero protections under the Geneva Conventions, and the international community likes it that way (rebellions, unaffiliated splinter groups, they're threats to states).

"Ender's Game" came out in 1977.

-- Mal

Make me want to read that book.

Or if you do, find a way to read the book for free, like check it out of the local library. Card is the most fanatical rightwing nutjob these days. "Ender's Game" is a good story, though.

Was Card a rightwing nut job when he wrote that book?
I know nothing about him.

In fact he used to do a wildly popular "Secular Humanist Revival" at SF conventions.

http://mooreslore.corante.com/archives/2005/06/06/second_secular_humanist_revival_meeting.php

Does it all make sense now?

Our guide insisted that before leaving we should all climb into a very old plane parked outside the museum. Once inside, we realized that the plane’s cabin had been converted into a classroom where children visiting the museum were shown films about land mines – how villages could go about clearing them, and how children could avoid them. They were encouraged never to touch a land mine, to identify partially exposed mines on sight, and to understand how terrible these weapons are. With shock I remembered visiting the Intrepid Museum years before, a converted U.S. aircraft carrier that is still moored at its pier in Manhattan, and feeling outraged that the school teachers who had brought their students there would allow the children to climb into the tiny coin-operated facsimile bomber aircraft that let them aim bombs, using a joystick, not even at individual humans but at whole countries, at maps of Iraq and Central Asia, allowing them to imagine bombing whole peoples, for fun, without seeing a single human face.

http://original.antiwar.com/kelly/2012/06/07/out-to-the-wall/

from the President, who is led by the CIA.

These are CIA operations. The President signs off and then non-military, private citizens do their bidding. All sorts of legality issues.

they are agents for government working in an official capacity. There are no legal issues at all.

Nor should they be carrying out covert or overt wars. They are not a military body.

acting in an official capacity. It is perfectly legal.

the CIA flies most of the missions over other countries.

I trust Barrack Obama ,he won't be president forever.

This person may have just revealed capability that he shouldn't have though. I mean, when you see drone recordings the quality is never very good, so for public consumption they may well reduce the quality of the videos so we don't know what it's like for the operators.

The person is still disconnected, though, they really are still behind a desk, sitting in an air conditioned office, and in the end they don't know what the death and destruction is like for those on the ground. And they certainly have absolutely no ability to judge the merits of their strikes (which is why so many civilians are dying in them). And I doubt in the end they have their own discretion at all, so they can bomb whoever they are told to bomb.

that are there will show enough detail of the house the surrounding area, even other houses on the street or road through the Google Zoom, Bird's Eye. It's very clear and would be no problem if one had the military ability to zone in and take out a house, building, block of houses.

I've found that to be scary enough. You can see how easy it is...but, also how easy it might be that misinformation might give the wrong house...the wrong placement in a foreign country.

plate numbers. Our satellite video/photo quality is not a mystery

They are taken by camera-equipped vehicles - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View

I always wondered how they got such impressive street level pics, I always just ASSumed it was the satellite image they somehow were able to enhance.

I'm still impressed with the level of detail they can get from satellites so I'm not surprised the drone pilots can see the folks moving on the ground.

Thanks for the info IDemo!

to generate the 'street view' it is well known that satellites have amazing capabilities... it is almost unreal what they can do.

that being said, the street view mapping car was in our neighborhood about a week ago.

sP

I asked him half jokingly one day if it was true that they could actually tell what kind of golf ball someone was playing. He smiled and said "I wish I could tell you that but I can't".

It must be like just watching a movie.



They get the double pleasure of seeing the grief their actions cause. What's not to like about that?

But the planet is now a free fire zone.

I finally see an upside to Citizens United.

Now I know that the remote pilots spend time observing the situation both before and after. They spend time confirming their target and make every effort to avoid innocents dying. They also observe the aftermath and have to live with any mistakes made.

Kudos to President Obama for making this information available to the American public to discuss.

It's very nice to have such confidence. But then, none of us are one of the mothers frantically searching among the bits and pieces of children to try to find something that she can bury, a foot with a shoe she recognizes maybe, an arm with a piece of cloth she remembers dressing her child in that morning. Funny how we never get that side of the story, here. Although the rest of the world has.

Amazing how little people have read about the actual, real-life aftermath of these WMDs and the horrendous tragedy they are for so many innocent human beings. But then, they are not Americans and we are the good guys, always.

We are so arrogant.

The embassy attacks, the USS Cole, all were terrible in dealing with the lives lost and the casualties sustained. Thank you for reminding us of those, sabrina.

Can you explain why we killed over a million Iraqis who had zero to do with 9/11? Thank you for reminding of that illegal war, for reminding of the lies told that Iraq was connected to the 9/11 attacks when nothing could have been further from the truth.

And explain how a child in Pakistan was in any way responsible for 9/11?

Or are you saying that when we are attacked we have the right to just lash out, anywhere at anyone in order to get some kind of misguided revenge? I sure hope that is not what your are saying. As was reported widely after the invasion of Afghanistan eg, most of the people there had not even heard of 9/11.

Maybe we should have attacked Saudi Arabia, if justice was what we after.

Your comment makes no sense. Unless you think we can use 9/11 forever to go into any country we want to and kill people, and then yell '9/11, 9/11' and expect normal people anywhere to buy it.

As in, "got my ass out on the streets with signs and protested it and voted against the people that sent us there and fucked up Afghanistan and then voted for the person who got us out of Iraq and is getting us out of Afghanistan."

So thanks very kindly for the implication that I supported the Iraq war, but get lost.

So they spin what you say.

The fact is, the drone strikes in Pakistan are no longer targeting anyone involved with any of the attacks you mention. They aren't even targeting anyone who has attempted attacks on US soil.

We are now targeting organizations who have taken up arms and supported those fighting our presence in Afghanistan.

Don't like it? Get AUMF repealed. I think since you know categorically that "the drone strikes in Pakistan are no longer targeting anyone involved with any of the attacks," you should be able to present your evidence in such a way as to convince the American public the AUMF is no longer needed.

The AUMF is meaningless to me. US has a history of "legalizing" it's atrocities.

The policy is ineffective, counter-productive and kill civilians. That makes if wrong, despite any possible condoning from an out-dated authorization.

The AUMF should not be meaningless to you. If you want to actually do something besides this purity ritual you're engaging in here, you have to get the AUMF repealed.

You're just making up shit about this based on your biases to attack Barack Obama.

I think he is dead wrong on this.

Which is not what you are doing here. Repealing the AUMF removes the legal authority to conduct the attacks.

that likely applies to a missle attack pretty much the same regardless of where the pilot is located. It probably also applies quite well to dumb bombs dropped B-2s and tank shells from an Abrams, and the minigun on the front of an A-10, or an Apache likely only leaves fragments behind as well. We have and use a great many things more lethal than drones.

during the Bush years, when a drone attack took place. We are talking about drones which is why I remembered it. We were outraged at the time airc, at least the Left was, Bush's supporters of course were cheering wildly. A new weapon to take out those 'ragheads' with. And no, they were not moved one bit when presented with an eye-witness account of the aftermath.

Post an OP about the rest of our WMDs and I will express my opinion on those also, and have many times, together with photos which should have ended the war in Iraq, eg, many years ago, but once again, the other side at that point, was quite please to see all those dead 'camel jockeys'.

Seems to me the outrage from the Left, justifiable outrage, during the Bush years, at the killing of innocents may have fake after all. But not for all of us.

It does not become more of an outrage when a drone is used. If one means of killing is better or worse than another, then at some point in some manner there must be an acceptable way to do it. No means or methods are acceptable.

It is only occasionally that they know or even suspect they know the identity of the target. Usually, they are just "suspected militants" and are all too often innocent civilians.

Whatever care they claim to be taking, it is still resulting in innocent people, including children dieing. And, as a policy, it still radicalizes populations and foments hate against the US.

We are targeting and killing some guys who were 7 or 8 years old on September 11, 2001.

You are saying that in the face of what it says.

What I am telling you is that they don't know identities of most of the targets. They observe behaviors they think are indicative of "militants". They don't know who they are actually bombing, only that they seem to "look" guilty. That is how they end up bombing and killing so many civilians and so many "suspected militants". The fact is, we don't know who most of these people are. Not before, not after.

On occasion, we do know who they are, such as al-Libi. But, most of the time it is just nameless faces.

I don't think you speak from anything except your own biases. Please prove me wrong and present your evidence that the people operating the drones don't have actual names justifying these attacks.

You are obviously woefully uniformed or intentional obfuscate out of your adoration of a political figure.

I don't care what you think about me. If you knew anything about me, you'd know the quickest way to changing my mind is to present actual evidence for the things you say.

My adoration for a political figure? I wonder why you are here at all if you don't support Barack Obama.

You seem unable to separate the man and his policies. Some are good, this one is atrocious and we will pay for it.

I'm shaking!

I see you've progressed on to the "talk about me" portion of the evening.

Best of luck to you.

This kind of crap drives far more people away then do any good.

Not only have they been doing it in Pakistan for years, they are now seeking authority to do it in Yemen, as well.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-seeks-new-authority-to-expand-yemen-drone-campaign/2012/04/18/gIQAsaumRT_story.html

CIA seeks new authority to expand Yemen drone campaign

The CIA is seeking authority to expand its covert drone campaign in Yemen by launching strikes against terrorism suspects even when it does not know the identities of those who could be killed, U.S. officials said.

Securing permission to use these “signature strikes” would allow the agency to hit targets based solely on intelligence indicating patterns of suspicious behavior, such as imagery showing militants gathering at known al-Qaeda compounds or unloading explosives.

The practice has been a core element of the CIA’s drone program in Pakistan for several years. CIA Director David H. Petraeus has requested permission to use the tactic against the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, which has emerged as the most pressing terrorism threat to the United States, officials said.

If approved, the change would probably accelerate a campaign of U.S. airstrikes in Yemen that is already on a record pace, with at least eight attacks in the past four months.
....

What a concept - presenting actual evidence instead of baseless BS. Thanks.

Yes, I was wrong to suggest they have a name every time a drone is fired.

But this article also shows that they aren't just shooting willy-nilly, either. They have to amass evidence on the person based on actual knowledge - "patterns of suspicious behavior, such as imagery showing militants gathering at known al-Qaeda compounds or unloading explosives" - something you very helpfully did not bold font.

Which is why the OP article is important - it shows this process in action, how it is carried out.

And yes, the link you've provided does indeed bolster my claim, wrong though I am about one specific thing, the knowing of names.

I've taken the time and given you links before only to have you dismiss, deny or ignore them. In other words, you aren't worth it, you don't debate in good faith.

But the way this should work is you present evidence I'm wrong. Then I say I'm wrong and I apologize. If you want to keep showing I'm right, though, go right on ahead.

"Ten more people have been killed by a US drone strike against suspected militants in Pakistan, with the aircraft firing its missiles into a gathering mourning one of two fighters killed in a similar atttack the previous day.

* * *

At the time of the attack, suspected militants had gathered to offer condolences to the brother of a militant commander killed during another US unmanned drone attack on Saturday. The brother was one of those who died in the Sunday morning attack. The Pakistani officials said two of the dead were foreigners and the rest were Pakistani."

A gathering is mourning is a "funeral" by any measure. You are welcome. I accept your apology.

Funerals have bodies present and those bodies are buried. Words mean things. I'm sure the writers and editors of the Guardian know what the word funeral is and how to use it correctly. Since they don't use the word funeral, I'm saying it wasn't a funeral. In fact, the Guardian goes out of its way to avoid using the word.

So, no, you don't get an apology from me. You're making up shit about this based on your biases and you need to stop.

And, proud of it. The way you jump in every drone thread and defend the killing of innocents tooth and nail says much, much about you and your character.

Because there are just too damn many of them. I do one or two every few days. I don't jump into every one.

So once again you've demonstrated the way that you make up bullshit from your biases. Maybe you should stop doing that.

It's really counterproductive, I'd say. People who keep posting drone thread after drone thread are desensitizing people to the subject.

so economic news is probably a bad idea to post about.

And those spiraling health care costs....Wouldn't want people to get desensitized about that.

Civil rights violations? Those are VERY important, so best keep quiet about them, too.

I think MLK would have accomplished a lot more, a lot faster, if he had just kept quiet and stopped desensitizing everyone.

Sadly, you showed a little promise there for an actual discussion of this important subject. Now you're trotting out BS as well.

that we should not talk about, because of the potential for desensitization. What makes THIS particular topic so uniquely likely to "desensitize" people that we should refrain from posting about it, while other bad news and egregious policies are fair game? Why wouldn't talking about the poor in this country desensitize us to the plight of the poor?

Saying there are too damn many threads about drones isn't saying there should be none and that no one should be talking about it. For the lova Christ, I'm talking about it, aren't I?

*You* are the one claiming there are too many threads about drones. You are not claiming that about other topics. And you give a specific reason: because they will "desensitize" people. Well, will too many threads about poverty "desensitize" people to poverty? How about environmental destruction?

Or Mitt Romney's terrible record and policy proposals? Surely if we post too much about them, people will get desensitized to them and consider him a more acceptable candidate, won't they?

Please explain your reasoning here. How do we determine when repeated posts on a disturbing topic are likely to "desensitize" people, and thus it would be better to curb those posts?

years ago. I am as appalled now when I read about the families, like the dead boy in Pakistan who had so much ambition for his future, and who was so loved by the people of his village, and of course his family eg, as I was by the first one.

Don't worry, people who care about human rights, sincerely that is, rarely ever become desensitized to violations of those rights. If that is the hope of those who violate human rights, they are likely to be very disappointed.

The number of threads on this forum and all over the world btw, should be a clue to them that while they may be immune to the killing of innocents they should not judge others by their own lack of normal human characteristics.

Most human beings possess what is known as an ability to empathize with other human beings. Some do not of course and those people are generally recognized as sociopaths. Once someone loses the ability to empathize with the suffering of others, they join that relatively small group. No, we are not desensitized. There can never be enough outrage over the killing of innocents, here or anywhere else.

Nice talking with you, sabrina.

and know that there is nastiness underneath the placidity. This is the inconvenient truth of it all: that there is savagery at the root of some of our policies at the highest level. And anyone who would order such evil is someone I would NEVER ever endorse!

Even if he does have quite the Pepsodent smile...

is solely dependent upon our trust in the operators and the ethics of those in charge of signing the death warrants, so who in their right mind would open this Pandora's box when people like Romney get this close to the WH???? Are we THAT sure that a crazed Republican RW extremist will NEVER sit in the oval office--will never steal their way in????? WTF are people thinking.

Plus, because this 'endeavor' (I call it a racket) involves billions of dollars, they can and will find more and more uses for these things--and mark my words--the drug war is just ripe for the picking for these little bastards. Dammit!!!!!!!

F*cking Big Brother is here, welcome to the 21st century. Have a nice day.

edited to add-- I am totally against drone warfare, by this or any administration, just to clarify.

"is solely dependent upon our trust in the operators and the ethics of those in charge of signing the death warrants, so who in their right mind would open this Pandora's box when people like Romney get this close to the WH???"

Drones are just a tool. Like nuclear weapons, or cruise missiles, or sending in a troop with a gun.

Some are, some aren't. Some wear uniforms, some don't.

You might as well have said:
"***wait...what? -- the airplane pilots are civilians?"

A drone is just an airplane, flied remotely.