Barack Obama confirms unmanned drone programme

[seethru]

I would agree up to a point; how PNSC takes US relations forward is quite important for the near future.

I take it that you have concerns about the future.
What according to you would be an ideal scenario/result (short term and long term) for Pakistan to work for, given the variables being US, Afghanistan(might add China, US-Iran issue). I am not talking about the internal issues of Pakistan. I think Pakistan is stable enough a state to disconnect foreign affairs and internal issues(ignoring the rhetoric).

 

[VCheng]

I take it that you have concerns about the future.
What according to you would be an ideal scenario/result (short term and long term) for Pakistan to work for, given the variables being US, Afghanistan(might add China, US-Iran issue). I am not talking about the internal issues of Pakistan. I think Pakistan is stable enough a state to disconnect foreign affairs and internal issues(ignoring the rhetoric).

I disagree; Pakistan's internal issues are severe enough to effect it externally as well, and only growing worse by the day.

 

[Sugarcane]

On Monday afternoon, Barack Obama became the first president to host a virtual town hall live on the Internet.

While that might be a feat worthy of the record books, President Obama did something else during his address that America has become accustomed to: he lied to the world.

Speaking Monday during a live web-chat hosted by Google, the president took on a series of issues submitted by the American people. Over the span of 45 minutes, President Obama addressed the Stop Online Piracy Act while refusing to side with either end of the argument, admitted to the world that he isn’t all that swell of a dancer and took a query from a professional puppeteer. In between ignoring the real issues or offering any sort of solid solution to the nation’s biggest problems, the president did put something rather important out for the world to ponder: America’s ongoing drone missions aren’t really all that bad.

If you ask anyone outside of the Oval Office — or especially America — they might tell you otherwise.

Tackling a question posed on drone strikes, President Obama defended the ongoing missions on Monday, saying they were necessary to target terrorists in a most effective manner. "For us to be able to get them in another way would involve probably a lot more intrusive military action than the ones we're already engaging in,” the president said on the topic of drones. While an argument could easily be made that operating drone missions in lieu of putting boots on the ground is best for the US Armed Forces, the president put a lot on the line Monday when he downplayed the result of the strikes.

Those drone attacks, carried out by unmanned aircraft controlled thousands of miles away, don’t do a lot of harm, said the president. According to Obama, drones had "not caused a huge number of civilian casualties” and he added that it’s "important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash.”

How small is that not-so huge number? If you ask anyone outside of the American intelligence community, they’ll tell you it is in the hundreds.

But what’s a few hundred civilian deaths, right?

Obama suggested that continuing the drone program would not be detrimental to the safety of foreign citizens, but studies conducted outside of the US say otherwise. Last summer, the UK’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism argued that since America began drone strikes, at least 385 civilians had been executed in US-led attacks. Of those statistics, the Bureau added that around half of the dead were children under the age of 18.

If you don’t take the word of foreign reporter’s, even American intelligence can confirm that the “not a huge number” statistic might be a bit of an exaggeration. One senior US official speaking on condition of anonymity added to CNN last year that CIA drone strikes had taken the lives of 50 civilians in all. As drone strikes go unreported and deaths unaccounted for, the actual number, unfortunately, is probably much higher than what either the CIA or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can come up with. In a single strike last March, 26 Pakistanis were killed during a US strike over Islamabad. Once all deaths were accounted for, it was revealed that over a dozen of the deaths in that single raid were suffered by innocent civilians.

When the Bureau of Investigative Journalism released their findings last year, they said that the number of civilians killed in US drone strikes were probably 40 percent higher than what the US was actually reporting. Between 2004 and 2011, they put the estimate of civilian deaths at a figure of 385, but added in the research that the toll could actually come close to tallying 775 casualties.

Which, if you ask President Obama, is not a huge number.

If 775 isn’t a huge number, than 56 is practically a fraction. That’s the number of children executed by US drones in the first 20 months of the Obama administration.

“Even one child death from drone missiles or suicide bombings is one child death too many,” responded Unicef to the news at the time.

In 2009 alone, almost 600 civilians were killed on the ground in Afghanistan, and the United Nations put 60 percent of that figure as a direct result of airstrikes, drone or otherwise. In Pakistan, civilians say they are terrified of the robotic planes and the damage that they have already done. “There was not a single Taliban militant in Pakistan before 9/11 but since we joined this war, we are facing acts of terrorism, bombing and drone strikes,” Movement for Justice leader Imran Khan told the press in 2011.

In Libya, where the United States never even engaged in an official war, according to Obama, American troops launched 145 drone strikes in an attempt to oust the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in a matter of months. As with most drone missions, the Department of Defense has not released any official statistics on what casualties were caused by the strikes.

Regardless of what damage a drone strike can have on enemy insurgents, experts say that the toll visited on civilians is several times that of militants. In a 2009 report from the Brookings Institute, Senior Fellow Daniel L Byman wrote that “for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died.”

In Pakistan where drone strikes have become practically commonplace, civilians are terrified that they will become the next accidental target of American aircraft. Saadullah, a teenage boy who spoke with a BBC reporter last year, lost both of his legs in drone strikes. Three of his relatives, all civilians, have also been killed by American strikes. Asghar Khan, an elder in Islamabad that also spoke to BBC, said three of his relatives were also shot down in airstrikes.

"My brother, my nephew and another relative were killed by a drone in 2008," said Khan. "They were sitting with this sick man when the attack took place. There were no Taliban."

A decade after the US began so-called cooperation with Pakistani intelligence, anti-American sentiments continue to grow as do the number of casualties. "When we intervene in people's countries to chase small cells of bad guys, we end up alienating the whole country and turning them against us,” counterterrorism expert David Kilcullen tells the Brookings Institute.

Now as the US puts surveillance drones over the skies of Iraq even after that war has officially ended, yet another country is becoming concerned that drones will drop bombs on their own civilians. “We hear from time to time that drone aircraft have killed half a village in Pakistan and Afghanistan under the pretext of pursuing terrorists,” 37-year-old café owner Hisham Mohammed Salah told the New York Times just this week. “Our fear is that will happen in Iraq under a different pretext.”

Under the Pentagon’s new revised budget, the US will phase out around 100,000 military staffers while adding droves of drones to its already established arsenal of robotic planes. Will drones soon become the United States’ not-so-secret weapon and phase out its Armed Forces personnel entirely? It’s not out of the question. After all, a drone strike authorized by Obama last year led to the death of two American citizens with alleged terrorist ties.

Don’t worry, though. Obama says these things are kept on a tight leash. Who actually pulls on that is as good of a guess as anyone’s, though. In November, the Wall Street Journal wrote that the “signature” strikes that account for most of the CIA’s drone missions only end up on the desk of the president after they are carried out. The US must only inform Pakistan of those strikes, by the way, if they believe the death toll will exceed 20.

Which really isn’t that big of a number either.

Hundreds of slaughtered civilians isn't a "huge number" for Obama — RT

 

[VCheng]

Hundreds of slaughtered civilians isn't a "huge number" for Obama — RT

It is not just Obama; Pakistan agrees:

Pakistan on Tuesday acknowledged "tactical advantages" to US drone strikes on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but appeared to shrug off the unexpected confirmation by Washington of attacks on its soil.

You may have missed this part in the one of the posts above.

 

[Safriz]

m.voanews.com/english/Pakistan-Repeats-Condemnation-of-Drone-Strikes-138417439.html

 

[TruthSeeker]

I have always said that, bring everything out clean to the public, the facts and figures of these strikes, the accords and all. How many terrorists were killed, how many civilians and how many were un acounted for or unidentified. Should have been done a long time ago.

Trouble is, it is not possible to bring out the "facts" following these strikes. Pakistan does not control the locations where most of the strikes occur, the miscreants do. The miscreants cordon off the strike sites and control the information about who was killed or injured. Thus a layer of propaganda is laid over the "facts" from virtually the moment the strike occurs. Even the relationships of the "civilians" present at the strike site to the "miscreants" at the strike site usually cannot be ascertained in any dependable manner. It is a Catch-22 situation. If the GoP really controlled the location, no drone strike would be necessary. Since the GoP does not control the location, a drone strike is the most effective way of attacking the bad guys who are there. BUT, the post strike analysis is immediately clouded by propaganda, especially anti-American propaganda.

 

[VCheng]

Trouble is, it is not possible to bring out the "facts" following these strikes. Pakistan does not control the locations where most of the strikes occur, the miscreants do. The miscreants cordon off the strike sites and control the information about who was killed or injured. Thus a layer of propaganda is laid over the "facts" from virtually the moment the strike occurs. Even the relationships of the "civilians" present at the strike site to the "miscreants" at the strike site usually cannot be ascertained in any dependable manner. It is a Catch-22 situation. If the GoP really controlled the location, no drone strike would be necessary. Since the GoP does not control the location, a drone strike is the most effective way of attacking the bad guys who are there. BUT, the post strike analysis is immediately clouded by propaganda, especially anti-American propaganda.

I think this is a clear situation for effective action that can be taken must be taken, for lack of a better alternative.

 

[user1]

What will US gain by admitting to something that is already known to the whole world?

 

[Icewolf]

we already knew this... although drones kill more civilians than terrorists. but what can we do.. it's zardari...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So finally the 'Global Terrorist in Chief' admits to an illegal, extra-judicial, pre-emptive assassination campaign that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

That is alright though apparently, since the dead are not Caucasian Americans after all.

 

[newdelhinsa]

Why official statement now ? Elections ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Analysis: The US is acting over and above the law

By Niaz A Shah
Published: February 1, 2012

Let there be no doubt: Drone attacks violate the UN Charter, the principle of proportionality and international human rights law.

While drone attacks might have some tactical advantage against al Qaeda and its affiliates, as is being argued, they are against the UN Charter, the law of armed conflict and international human rights law.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the “threat or use of force” against another state. The Charter allows for the use of force in only one form, ie, under Article 42, wherein the Security Council may allow the use of force as an enforcement measure when all peaceful means are exhausted.

There, however, is one exception to this rule: States are allowed to use force in self-defence against an armed attack. This is a temporary right, ie, until the Security Council is activated to respond to an armed attack – an issue of international peace and security.

The US has traditionally relied on the argument of the right of self-defence. However, al Qaeda and its affiliates are non-state actors – hence three conditions must be satisfied before the use of force against them can be justified. The first condition is that there must be an ‘armed attack’ against the US which necessitates the use of force in self-defence. The key question here is: What constitutes an armed attack? The severity and scale of damage done by the attack of a non-state actor must be such that it would amount to an armed attack had it been carried out by the regular forces of a state. The second condition is that there must a link between the non-state actor and the host state. In Nicaragua v. USA, 1986, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the host state must exercise an “effective control” over the non-state actor to trigger the right to use force in self-defence. The ICJ reaffirmed the test of “effective control” in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro 2007 (paragraphs 399 and 401). Article 8 of the 2001 International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts, reflecting customary law, states that the “conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying out the conduct”. The factual link between the host and non-state actor must be established before resorting to use force.

In addition, the host state shall either not be willing or unable to control the non-state actor. Once these two conditions are met, then proportionate use of force is permitted – which is the third condition.

Let us turn to the US claim of self-defence against al Qaeda and its affiliates in Pakistan. First, Pakistan does not have effective control over al Qaeda or its affiliates. On the contrary, al Qaeda and its affiliates, such as the Pakistani Taliban, are banned under the terrorism legislation in Pakistan. The security forces of Pakistan are actively engaged in fighting al Qaeda and its affiliates. Pakistan clearly does not have “effective control” over al Qaeda and its affiliates and their acts cannot be attributed to Pakistan. The argument that the Pakistan is not willing to do enough to suppress armed groups inside its borders is not convincing: Hundreds of Taliban fighters and Pakistani troops are killed in the ongoing armed conflict.

Evidence also suggests that, very often, civilians were killed and property destroyed in access of “concrete and direct military advantage”, i.e. violating the customary principle of proportionality. The law of armed conflict allows killing and being killed in the battlefield by combatants – but the CIA, a civilian organ of the state, targets individuals away from the battlefield who they regard either as terrorists or supporters of terrorism. The CIA has virtually become a judge, a jury and an executioner violating international human rights law.

Let there be no doubt: Drone attacks violate the UN Charter, the principle of proportionality and international human rights law.
The author is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Hull, United Kingdom.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 1st, 2012

Analysis: The US is acting over and above the law – The Express Tribune

=============

The global 'feudal lord/dictator/tyrant' at it again ...

 

[Kazhugu]

So finally the 'Global Terrorist in Chief' admits to an illegal, extra-judicial, pre-emptive assassination campaign that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

That is alright though apparently, since the dead are not Caucasian Americans after all.

i wonder why you were clapping your hands in glee when the drones took out baitullah mehsud, ilyas kashmiri etc...

and yeah be careful with you words..they might just haul you to prison....


and also i would not call obama as the terrorist chief when all this is done with the express consent of the army chief and president of pakistan....to the pakistanis they are the real terrorists...

and sadly for you,

Pakistan on Tuesday acknowledged "tactical advantages" to US drone strikes on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but appeared to shrug off the unexpected confirmation by Washington of attacks on its soil.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Amnesty seeks legal basis of US drone strikes in Pakistan

APP (3 hours ago) Today

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK: The United States has officially admitted that it carries out drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas with President Barack Obama defending the use of unmanned aircraft in eliminating al Qaeda militants.

After the US president’s candid confirmation, the Amnesty International on Tuesday asked the United States to disclose details of the legal and factual basis for use of drones in Pakistan.

President Obama made the rare public acknowledgment on Monday during an hour-long online video chat with users of the social network Google+.

In a statement, the Amnesty International also called for the US to monitor civilian casualties inflicted by drone attacks in Pakistan.

“The US authorities must give a detailed explanation of how these strikes are lawful and what is being done to monitor civilian casualties and ensure proper accountability, said Sam Zarifi Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Director.

“What are the rules of engagement? What proper legal justification exists for these attacks? While the President’s confirmation of the use of drones in Pakistan is a welcome first step towards transparency, these and other questions need to be answered.”

In his remarks, President Obama said on Monday that the drone strikes, which are carried out by the CIA rather than the military, were a “targeted focused effort at the people who are on a list of active terrorists”.

Obama said that the strikes targeted “al Qaeda suspects who are up in very tough terrain along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

The Amnesty said because of the security situation and difficulty in accessing the terrain it has been impossible for organizations like Amnesty International to verify the number of civilian casualties caused by the drones.

In Islamabad, the Foreign Ministry termed the drone attacks as counterproductive and a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.

“Drone attacks are unlawful, counterproductive and hence unacceptable. We cannot condone violation of our sovereignty,” Spokesman Abdul Basit said, according to the international media reports.

Responding to the questions in a “virtual interview” that was conducted via Google+ and YouTube, President Obama defended the use of unmanned aircraft to kill Al Qaeda operatives and other militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas, thus officially acknowledging the classified CIA drone program.

Over the years, US officials have refused to discuss the issue in public.

“I think that we have to be judicious in how we use drones,” Obama said.

The drones, he said, have been used for “very precise, precision strikes against Al Qaeda and their affiliates.”

Obama went on to say that “obviously a lot of these strikes have been in FATA,” (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) and have been used for “going after Al Qaeda suspects who are in very tough terrain along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

“This thing is kept on a very tight leash,” Obama said.

The US does not use drones “willy nilly” but in a way that avoids more intrusive military actions, he said.

According to The Los Angeles Times, Obama echoed the arguments of Pentagon and CIA officials, who often make the point in private discussions that the drones can perform targeted strikes and thereby substantially reduce the potential for civilian casualties associated with high-altitude bombing.

But Obama went well beyond that as he took issue with a Monday story in the New York Times, which reported that the State Department is operating a small fleet of surveillance drones to protect US embassies, consulates and personnel stationed in Iraq following the withdrawal of American troops.

Some Iraqi officials are angry about the program and see it as a violation of their sovereignty, according to the Times report.

But Obama said the US still respects the sovereignty of other nations even as it uses drones within their borders.

“The truth of the matter is, we’re not engaging in a bunch of drone attacks inside of Iraq,” Obama said.

“There’s some surveillance to make sure that our embassy compound is protected.”

Amnesty seeks legal basis of US drone strikes in Pakistan | World | DAWN.COM

---------- Post added at 01:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 AM ----------

i wonder why you were clapping your hands in glee when the drones took out baitullah mehsud, ilyas kashmiri etc...

And when was I clapping my hands with glee exactly? Or have you gotten into the business of lying and distorting the truth like Obama and the rest of the US Establishment?

and yeah be careful with you words..they might just haul you to prison....

My words have been the same for years now ... this is the last time you get a free pass for issuing threats to other members on this forum.

and also i would not call obama as the terrorist chief when all this is done with the express consent of the army chief and president of pakistan...

I don't believe I am a supporter of Zardari in any case, and please do show me some actual agreement between the US and Pakistan that substantiates what you allege.

 

[TOPGUN]

When you allow your self to let someone else to come sneak in your backyard and do whatever they need too then... why cry about about it why lie about it to you the nation . It's no one's loose but just the poor people that get caught up or get killed in the mix this f__ken courpt gov needs to be gone ASAP if we want Pakistan to survive for the future and for the childeren of tommrow so help us GOD.