|
DesideriScuri -> RE: So who's a terrorist now ..... ? (9/27/2012 7:03:14 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The much vaunted 'drone strategy' used by the US to hit Afghani insurgents and 'terrorrists' inside Pakistan has been the subject of a study carried out by researchers at NYU School of Law and Stanford University Law School. The researchers set out to conduct "independent investigations into whether, and to what extent, drone strikes in Pakistan conformed to international law and caused harm and/or injury to civilians".
The study's findings, analysed at the two links below, are alarming. They report multiple breaches of international humanitarian laws, woeful targeting, an unacceptable level of civilian casualties, drone missile attacks on rescuers trying to pull wounded and dying from the rubble, lies by US officials in reporting the outcomes of drone strikes to Americans. In short, they accuse the US of terrorising the entire population of the border regions of Pakistan. They found the strategy short sighted at best, and likely to cause more terrorists by filling the ranks of insurgent groups by angry young men whose relatives and communities had been devastated by the missile strikes.
They also found only about one in fifty of casualties are known militants, calling into question the military effectiveness of the strategy, whatever its other flaws.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outrage-at-cias-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-8174771.html
I was horrified as I read the articles. What was your reaction?
Horrified? No. Disappointed? Absolutely. Stunned? At the incredible increase in number of strikes and in the precision of "surgical removal" by way of buzzsaw.
I am finding out, more and more, that "collateral damage" pertains more to the impact on our troops than it does to the civilians.
I am not surprised that the drone strikes induce terror. I did not know the drones flew 24/7. I was also shocked that we (the US Government) had a study showing that our policies were more to blame for anti-US terrorism, and yet, when politicians made that claim, they were routinely ridiculed. In an early GOP debate, Ron Paul busted out his claim and was booed by the audience and - you'll get a laugh out of this - while Santorum's response got a round of applause.
The main reason I wasn't a Ron Paul supporter in 2008 was my perception of RP's foreign policy as being dead ass wrong. I blame my naivete on my lack of paying attention to almost all things politics in previous years. The more I read, the more I found that RP was right. The more I read, the more conservative I became. The more I read, the more I disagreed with the Democrats and the un-proclaimed path of the Republicans. Through readings of economics, and more political writings and discussions I would have thought I'd perform in my lifetime prior to then, I have only become more and more conservative, fiscally, and more and more Libertarian in terms of party affiliation.
I haven't completely made my decision regarding my vote in November. It's either going to be Romney, or it's going to be Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party). I am not sure what it's going to take to make my decision, either.
I have not always been against drone strikes, and I am still not completely against them. They do serve a purpose, though I do believe our current usage is ill-advised, not to mention wrong (I will not comment on Bush's use of drones since I don't know his style of use and it really doesn't matter at this point; I do not know whether or not I'd back Bush's usage patterns, so I'm not simply being partisan).
|
|
|
|
