Pakistani family of drone strike victim gives harrowing testimony to Congress

pedant |ˈpednt| noun a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

Please explain to me how saying that an invasion is not a war is a minor detail.

Drones are being used because it causes less unintended collateral damage than a bomb from a F-14. Never any collateral damage? No. Less? Yes.

It is not true. The current congress govt is very corrupt. BJP is a lot less corrupt. So, the congress spreads this propaganda that modi will create problems for minorities.

     It argues its campaign is conducted "consistent with all 
     applicable domestic and international law". Unofficial 
     reports, however, have suggested that hundreds have been  
     killed in Pakistan alone, with up to 200 children killed.

So how exactly are drone strikes in countries we are not at war with "consistent with all applicable domestic and international law". I imagine that it should at least be considered murder according to Pakistani law (and other countries where these strikes take place) and that it would be within the rights of these countries to demand extradition of the individuals complicit in the crime so that can stand trial in Pakistan (and other countries). The US obviously won't acquiesce to extradition requests for the crime of murder that it considers legitimate, but that doesn't mean that those committing crimes cannot be arrested while traveling abroad to countries that do have extradition treaties with Pakistan and other countries in question.

What international laws allow this to continue?

If I were a citizen of a country where these remote drone attacks were taking place and no war has been declared, I would be campaigning to put every person directly responsible on the list of criminals wanted internationally and have them arrested by my allies if those criminals travel to my allies' country.

I would be far more comfortable with what is going on if there were a requirement that all drone operators had to be citizens of the countries being targeted. They can be supervised and trained by Americans, but the trigger must be pulled by a fellow countryman. If we can't find people to do that, then we need to cease what we are doing or formally declare war via a Congressional vote. Alternatively, we could request or even fund that Pakistan and other countries send in police to arrest those responsible with a drone on standby and only send in the drone if the person refuses to be arrested peacefully. The moment they fire back on the Pakistani police with weapons, the drone would be sent in to resolve the conflict. Either way, fellow citizens of those targeted should be directly involved in these attacks or they should not occur at all. Sentencing people to death without trial is un-American.

What happens when we've killed as many innocents as were killed on September 11th on US soil? Death of innocents from above is simply unjustified.

> the U.S. military told them to shoot those people.

Yes. What you are leaving out is the rest of the story. Let's go to a neutral source:

Leaked U.S. video shows deaths of Reuters' Iraqi staffers http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journa...

"It showed an aerial view of a group of men moving about a square in a Baghdad neighborhood. The fliers identified some of the men as armed.

WikiLeaks said the men in the square included Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his assistant and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, who were killed in the incident.

"The gathering at the corner that is fired up on has about nine people in it," Julian Assange, a WikiLeaks spokesman, told reporters at the National Press Club.

The gunsight tracks two of the men, identified by WikiLeaks as the Reuters news staff, as the fliers identify their cameras as weapons. Military spokesman Turner said that during the engagement, the helicopter mistook a camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

The helicopter opened fire on the small group, killing several people and wounding others. Minutes later, when a van approached and began trying to assist the wounded, the fliers became concerned the vehicle was occupied by militants trying to collect weapons and help wounded comrades escape." [Emphasis mine]

Now, going to the second link, we read the description of the video as such:

"5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff." [Emphasis mine]

Was the killing done without judgement? Without consideration? They weren't just firing on civilians. They were firing on what they could make out as militants.

You can argue that the rules of engagement are wrong. That we can't just rely on the eyes on the ground to give us reports. That someone saying they see a weapon is not a strong enough reason for allowing them to open fire. You can argue that we have to wait until people are fired upon, or die, before reacting. But your comment just spreads misinformation.