Pilot-less “Cruel” Drones Under Attack
Jul 6th, 2009 | 8 responses
Britain’s top judge has expressed concern about the use of pilot-less drones as weapons of war. His comments come at a time when there is a growing international concern about the danger these pose to the civilians.
Drones have become an important weapon against the Taliban in the remote mountainous borderlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan, reports The Independent. “Last month the US admitted to 26 civilian deaths in a series of drone attacks in May. Afghan officials put the death toll at 140, significantly higher than the US claims.
“Lord Bingham compared drones, which have killed hundreds of civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Gaza, with cluster bombs and landmines. Last week Israel was accused of using missile-firing drones to unlawfully kill at least 29 Palestinian civilians during the Gaza Strip war.
“Despite having advanced surveillance equipment, drone operators failed to exercise proper caution ‘as required by the laws of war’ in verifying their targets were combatants, said Human Rights Watch, the New York-based monitoring group.
“International lawyers also argue that air strikes using drones are state-sanctioned assassinations where the targeted suspected terrorist has no opportunity to defend the case against him.
“Last month US drone aircraft killed at least 45 Pakistani Taliban militants in south Waziristan when it fired missiles at the funeral of an insurgent commander who was killed earlier that day.
“Two years ago a Predator fired a missile into a wedding party in Afghanistan, killing at least 30 civilians, including children. But they have proved successful in the war against al-Qai’da and the Taliban, who have both lost high-ranking leaders to the unmanned aircraft.”
8 Responses to “Pilot-less “Cruel” Drones Under Attack”
I don't know. Aerial bombing is a method of attacking an enemy in his own territory. Even if you attack with ground troops the supporting artillery, team packed or long distance, as well as machine gun fire likely will kill as many innocents.
It really doesn’t make any difference if an aircraft engaged in aerial bombing has a pilot or not. At least our pilot is not at risk with a UAV. He/she can't be shot down, captured and….well you know the rest. War is just a horrible business whereby civilians very often die in higher numbers than combatants. Evidence of our mistakes in combat are real and plentiful, but I just don’t think our military would intentionally target innocent people if they could avoid it considering the value of the target. The best thing to do is stay out of war if possible. If war is unavoidable then I don’t think much can be done regarding innocent deaths. War is what it is, man’s greatest inhumanity.
War is just a horrible business whereby civilians very often die in higher numbers than combatants. – FT
Exactly. The US for example killed an estimated 600,000 people during the bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war, and all the bombing we did in Vietnam exceeded the amount of bombing we did in WWII, during which we obliterated cities in Germany – Dresden being the most cited example. And of course there is Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, I understand the reasoning behind the bombing of those two cities, but the point is this: All the innocents who are killed in times of war don't question whether it's war or murder. They are just as dead either way. Needless to say, the US is only one of many warlike cultures to have existed throughout history, and atrocities abounded before we were even on the map. I single out the US because it is my country, and I grew up being taught that we are the standard of morality among all the countries of the earth. Of course the truth is a little more complicated eh? National defense is one thing, but that's hardly the only reason we've gone to war. Let's face it, we're a sick, sick species.
“I just don’t think our military would intentionally target innocent people if they could avoid it considering the value of the target.”
We avoid intentional targeting of the innocent (this is not World War II), as does Israel. The problems begin when the enemy conceals itself and blends within the innocent civilian population (as well as in a population that often is not innocent, but is collaborative and supportive). I believe at least once we have revised our tactics in Afghanistan specifically because we were producing excessive and unacceptably high civilian casualties in attacks (as well as not doing enough homework on identifying the enemy before attacking).
I don't have a problem with the UAVs provided they're used properly. I look at our past history objectively (and note we were less bad than our enemies were, obviously) as well as what we were ready to do as far as escalation in that earlier time (chemical and biological warfare against the Axis if they attacked first, then considered as an initiative to end the war against Japan). I'm not pathologically anti-nuclear; we need a new generation of smaller, better nuclear weapons for deeply buried targets, hardened targets, and to destroy enemy WMDs (along with more work on non-nuclear WMD-destruction agents), and obviously it might make sense to put chemicals or radiological substances on areas to deny their use or transit rather than use land mines (not only in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border zone but also the Korean DMZ, for example, or for Israel to do that on its final borders). There's nothing wrong about such weapons that leaves it up to the enemy to expose itself and harm itself — consequence of its own actions and its own responsibility.
Why expose our aircrews to attack when we can use remotely piloted or even someday autonomous armed UAVs? “Missile away.”
War is just a horrible business whereby civilians very often die in higher numbers than combatants.
It depends who you ask. War is a very profitable business. Also, killing civilians really is the central tactic in modern warfare. By which I mean, it's the point. It's not incidental; it's the point.
“Also, killing civilians really is the central tactic in modern warfare. By which I mean, it's the point. It's not incidental; it's the point.”
It is not for the USA, Israel, and so many other nations. In fact, they avoid it to the extent of constraining themselves and deliberately creating risk for their own forces.
Folks, I cannot disagree with any of you on any point you've made. Snark or not. When countries go to war, their peoples go to war also. They shake their fists at each other and call for blood. Today, the best restraints populations have are our own guilt, and, the Geneve` Conventions. Embracing the International Committee of the Red Cross movement for the protection of the innocent in armed conflicts is what I demand of our elected representatives.
Then there is always that all out war looming. Nuclear holocaust. The end of life. One wonders if mankind has the capacity to prevent its own extinction. We are greedy little monkeys. Paranoid in the knowledge that we are all far more alike than different.
Who do you think the right-wing death squads we have trained & financed in Central America were killing, if not civilians?
The unlearned judge is a perfect example of the saying, “The law is an ass”. Judge Bingham should change his name to Judge Bunkum. He is typical ignoramus mouthing off on matters about which he knows absolutely nothing. I advise him and others like him to go to the front and spend 6 months in battle. Then he/they will know what it is like to be under fire. Should he survive, he will come back singing a different tune. And will the assorted international lawyers kindly tell us how they will persuade terrorists-suspected or otherwise- to present themselves in thge court of law and be subject to the legal process? War is horrible and all weapons kill civilians. Drones are no exception. It would be nice to have a weapon which could infalibly differentiate between combattants and civilians, but such a weapon does not exist.. Grow up Bingham and come into the real world (as opposed to the legal world). Wars are fought on battlefields and not in courtrooms