Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 154 posts

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#61

Post by PavlovsCat »

bloaf wrote: post #9
TallGuyShort wrote: post #6

I doubt most of the other deaths were ever given much of a fair trial, so the implication of innocence should probably be applied a bit more broadly. You know, since we're defending democracy and all.

The military does not give trials to the people it kills. Drone strikes are a military action.

That's because the military is supposed to only attack where the trial is a foregone conclusion -- i.e. a soldier actively fighting a war with you. Kinda like the cops also shoot at someone with a gun the moment they raise it at them. There is no trial needed when there is clear and present danger, or a formal declaration of war and uniforms.

But of course, with terrorism it's all so complicated and confusing, why not just wear lampshades and drink a lot instead of bothering to figure out what is what.

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#62

Post by PavlovsCat »

MarkMc wrote: post #59

I've never understood how these two positions are logically consistent: (1) We do not torture people on principle (2) We use drone strikes that sometimes kill innocent bystanders because the ends justifies the means In the case of torturing someone, you are inflicting only pain (which is not as bad as death) on someone who is probably guilty of a crime (which is not as bad as inflicting pain on someone who is complet…

I agree with all you said, but it's "principle", not "principal" (I'm just correcting you because I hope others would do me the same favour :)

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#65

Post by moskie »

peterkelly wrote: post #47
bloaf wrote: post #44

Most people I see comfortably opining on drone strikes seem to be doing so without the discomfort of thinking the issue through. My thought process is this: Say the US were to find evidence that a Canadian terrorist group was planning an attack on the Joe Louis Arena. We would inform the Canadian government who would then go, arrest the terrorists and put them on trial. This seems to be what drone critics think shoul…

> "What sort of military intervention should we use? We could send in soldiers to try and arrest the terrorists, but that is slow, risky, and expensive (we need holding facilities, transportation, etc.) Drones are the obvious alternative. Not only are they cheap, they are pose about zero risk to US personnel" So what you're saying is that the lives of US personnel are more valuable than that of innocent Pakistani civ…

> So what you're saying is that the lives of US personnel are more valuable than that of innocent Pakistani civilians, including the 94 children cited in the report?

I think the point is that the best option is the one that you would predict results in the fewest amount of deaths. Do you think the option of sending in soldiers would definitely result in fewer deaths?

Now, I'm much more inclined to agree with the idea that we should end the war on terror in general. But I'm not so convinced that, in the meantime, drones shouldn't be used.

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#66

Post by anaptdemise »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #61
bloaf wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The military does not give trials to the people it kills. Drone strikes are a military action.

That's because the military is supposed to only attack where the trial is a foregone conclusion -- i.e. a soldier actively fighting a war with you. Kinda like the cops also shoot at someone with a gun the moment they raise it at them. There is no trial needed when there is clear and present danger, or a formal declaration of war and uniforms. But of course, with terrorism it's all so complicated and confusing, why no…

The problem is that we have seen this all before. It is freaking scary to pick up a history book after reading the news.

"The Algerian War of Independence does provide such similarities in terms of geography and topography, social makeup, as well as military and insurgent forces at play. The French, however, lost Algeria after eight years of bitter fighting and the subject is further obscured by the emotions surrounding the atrocities by both sides, thus making the collation of objective testimonies difficult. Most confusing, though, are the circumstances specific to a troubled France at the time, such as the profound tensions that existed between citizens in the métropole and French immigrants in Algeria proper, the continued effort to resume its former place as a major power in the world, the collapse of the Fourth Republic in 1958,..."[1]

The technology might improve and the tactics might go through a revision or two but what is the possibility of similar outcomes? Is unilateral, and sometimes excessive, force the only possibility?

[1]http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/french-counterinsurgenc...

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#French_counter-ins...

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#67

Post by PavlovsCat »

jaebrown wrote: post #49

Some of the comments on Salon are just sad. A death is a death. Whether it's 900 or 2, drone strikes that kill innocent civilians are unacceptable. Trying to justify it by saying that there is only a small death toll number is inhumane. We can not say are objective is to protect innocent life and then take innocent life. Giving precedent to American life makes us and NATO forces seem like evil pretentious bastards. W…

War is money, so keeping an enemy is important. If the US ended its War on Terrorism today, there would be no other organization, faction or nation willing to step up to be Public Enemy #1.

I think this is a reasonable assumption. Consider that during the Cold War, US military spending was justified by the Cold War. Then the USSR collapsed, and noboody blinked or even skipped a beat (military spending wise), because hey, the world's still dangerous (not in small part thanks to the weapons sold around like candy during the cold war?), and also Saddam, Somalia, whatever; sarcastically you could call it lots of make-work until the War On Terrorism could begin proper.

Then everybody is more or less instantly told that this "war" may take a long time, many generations, and that these are oh so tough and dangerous times, like setting someone's house on fire and then saying it's gonna get warmer. The huge surplus Bush turned into debt, that money ended up in the coffers defense contractors and whatnot; whoever has it now, it's not like fairies took it away to outer space (which is kind of how you're supposed to think about it: out of sight, out of mind).

"War is a Racket" [1] is such an old book... and no matter how true it might have been back then, it certainy seems true today. A very costly, lethal or profitable racket, depending on your part in it.

[1] http://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#68

Post by MarkMc »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #62
MarkMc wrote: post #59

I've never understood how these two positions are logically consistent: (1) We do not torture people on principle (2) We use drone strikes that sometimes kill innocent bystanders because the ends justifies the means In the case of torturing someone, you are inflicting only pain (which is not as bad as death) on someone who is probably guilty of a crime (which is not as bad as inflicting pain on someone who is complet…

I agree with all you said, but it's "principle", not "principal" (I'm just correcting you because I hope others would do me the same favour :)

Thanks. In my defence, I had checked the definition of 'principal' and found 'something of principal or chief importance' [1] so had thought it was the correct option.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principal

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#69

Post by e12e »

confluence wrote: post #42

Not that I'm defending the actions of the drone strikes, but assuming the numbers in this report are correct, it does seem to kill a lot fewer civilians than an invasion and full blown war would have, both in relative and absolute terms. With the Iraq war we've had over 100K civilians killed to ~40K combatants. Thinking logically, drone strikes would've severely reduced the number of civilians killed, whilst simultan…

You cannot occupy from the air.

Another point is that the Iraq war(s) was used to dump old, less accurate, ordnance -- so that the US is now largely left with much more modern weaponry (Drones or no drones, you still need to paint a target and fire some form of missile/bomb).

Re: Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

#70

Post by hoggle »

peterkelly wrote: post #45

Here's an idea. Now this might sound a bit crazy, but hear me out: How about working to prevent terrorism by not murdering innocent civilians in other countries and inciting massive hatred towards the US from those affected and their fellow countrymen? Can you imagine what would happen if another country was carrying out drone strikes in the US, with similar numbers of casualties?

That is exactly the kind of common sense most politicians try to fight, constantly.

Ron Paul has been speaking about this for many years now, most prominently during the 2008 elections. It might have cost him quite some votes though, the truth hurts.

A good read on the topic is "Blowback" by Chalmers Johnson.

http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Edition-Consequences-A...

Post reply on HN