Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- With Little More Than a Note, Obama Deploys US Troops To Niger
- Stripped of 'Country of Origin' Label, US Agrees to Sell Tear Gas to Egypt
- Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
- 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy
- Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
- Scale Implosion: After Ruining America, the Era of Giant Chain Stores Is Over
- Decolonize the Consumerist Wasteland: Re-imagining a World Beyond Capitalism and Communism
- 5 Reasons Why the Keystone XL Pipeline is Bad for the Economy
- Lose Your Lawn
Popular content
Today's Top News
America's Deadly Robots Rewrite the Rules of War
The kohl-eyed Hakimullah Mehsud probably is dead. He was the target for a missile fired last month from an unmanned aircraft hovering over the Afghan-Pakistani border - but launched by an operator in the US.
A predator drone. For the first time ever, a civilian intelligence agency is manipulating robots from halfway around the world in a program of extrajudicial executions in a country with which Washington is not at war.(AP Photo/U.S. Air Force, Staff Sgt. Brian Ferguson) Mehsud
was the ruthless mastermind of multiple suicide bomb attacks in
Pakistan. He was part of a suicide mission on December 30 at Khost,
just across the border in Afghanistan, which killed seven CIA agents
who were working on the covert operation that now appears to have ended
Mehsud's brief and brutal leadership of the Taliban in Pakistan.
In the artistry of war, the insertion of a Jordanian double-agent who detonated his explosive vest inside this super-sensitive CIA bunker was flawless. But, in their payback, the enraged Americans confirmed the breadth of a new horizon in modern warfare - launching 15 clinical drone attacks in which more than 100 people died along the border, as Washington's electronic eyes and guns sought out Mehsud and his Taliban and al-Qaeda allies.
War does not get more radical than this - technically, politically and, perhaps, ethically.
Consider: for the first time ever, a civilian intelligence agency is manipulating robots from halfway around the world in a program of extrajudicial executions in a country with which Washington is not at war.
Consider, too: the drone wars were initiated under the presidency of George Bush. But it is the Democrat Barack Obama who has given them flight and stumped up sufficient funding to spark serious debate on the end of the ''Top Gun'' era of the fighter-pilot.
And there is this: despite decades of American disquiet about assassinations abroad and a shrill Republican critique of him as a security wuss, the professorial Obama is the new killer on the block, authorising more drone attacks in the first year of his term in office than Bush did in his entire presidency.
At the White House these days they hold their breath, praying for a turnaround in the war in Afghanistan to vindicate Obama's gamble in dispatching 50,000 more young Americans to a conflict some deem unwinnable.
But confidence in the use of state-sanctioned lethal force in the undeclared American war in neighbouring and nuclear-armed Pakistan borders on the giddy. "The only game in town" was how CIA director Leon Panetta described it last year.
As a covert operation, insufficient data is released to judge its efficacy. It took publication by the Pakistani media of Google Earth images of Predator aircraft on the ground at a base in Pakistan to elicit oblique CIA confirmation that the program actually operated there. Last month a CIA spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, only said the agency's ''counter-terrorism operations - lawful, aggressive, precise and effective - continue without pause".
Mehsud's is an impressive scalp of war - for Washington and Islamabad. He had been in the leadership post for just five months after his predecessor of two years, Baitullah Mehsud, suffered a similar fate in August.
The first drone strikes of the new presidency took place on Obama's third day in office - four Arabs, presumed to be al-Qaeda associates, died in a strike in the border region. But as many as 16 members of the extended family of a respected pro-government tribal elder died when the second drone strike that day went terribly awry.
A study by the New America Foundation last year found that just six of 41 CIA-launched drone attacks in the border region had targeted al-Qaeda members. Eighteen of the targets were Taliban and 16 of them alone were efforts to kill Baitullah Mehsud - which, depending on who did the counting, racked up more than 300 additional civilian deaths.
Body-counting is a fraught business. Called Revenge of the Drones, the NAF study concluded that, since January 2008, the American kill has included ''about 20 leaders of al-Qaeda, the Taliban and allied groups ... in addition to hundreds of lower-level militants and civilians. Under President Obama, the strikes have taken out at most [a] half-dozen militant leaders while also killing as many as 530 others - of those, around 250 to 400 are reported to have been lower-level militants, about three-quarters; and about a quarter appear to have been civilians."
The number of civilian deaths and their implication are hotly debated - because of the extent to which they inflame anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and because the vaporised death of a target denies any opportunity to capture and interrogate him.
Writing in The New York Times, the counter-insurgency experts David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum decried the toll. Citing a civilian figure of 700, they extrapolated a civilian loss of 98 per cent of deaths or 50 civilians for each militant eliminated.
Bill Roggio, the managing editor of the respected American blog The Long War Journal, goes to the other extreme, claiming only 10 per cent of those killed could be described as civilians.
After a detailed study of media and other reports from the border region, Revenge of the Drones takes a middle course, opting for a civilian toll of about one-third of those killed.
Just like their political and military leaders, Pakistanis give conflicting signals on the drone wars. Last summer a Gallup poll found only 10 per cent support for the attacks, but about half in a study of 550 professional people living in the border region described the strikes as accurate, and a little more than half estimated that the strikes damaged the militants without increasing anti-US sentiment.
The changed ground rules making extrajudicial killing more acceptable are a product of post-September 11 thinking. In 2001 Bush overturned President Gerald Ford's 1976 prohibition on assassinations by US intelligence agencies - but there's something else in the works, too.
Despite its loyalty to Israel, the Bush administration condemned Israel's campaign of targeted assassinations in the Palestinian Occupied Territories in the weeks before the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. But, as critics of the drone wars struggle to get traction in public debate, it is curious that in the absence of any negative reaction to Obama's expansion of his remote killing program last year, the former Bush administration was under attack for revelations that it had considered dispatching more traditional hit-squads abroad to take out al-Qaeda operatives.
Forty-four countries now use unmanned aircraft for surveillance - only the US and Israel deploy them as killers.
In the first weeks of his presidency Obama reportedly wrestled with the moral and strategic implications of the program. But, as reported in The New York Times, he pointedly declared to one of his earliest Situation Room gatherings: "The CIA gets what it needs."
The American Civil Liberties Union explained in a Freedom of Information application last month: "It appears ... that lethal force is being exercised by individuals who are not in the military chain of command, are not subject to military rules and discipline; and do not operate under any other public system of accountability or oversight."
A Democrat's targeted killings, it seems, are not quite the same as those of a Republican.
The first drones flew before the September 11 attacks - searching for Osama bin Laden. Now the US Air Force estimates that about 15 per cent of its $US230 billion ($260 billion) arms-procurement program will be spent on robot equipment within five years.
Predators can fly 700 kilometres, then hover for 30 hours at a stretch, feeding real-time video and other data through 10 simultaneous streams to controllers in 10 locations. Priced at $US4.5 million, Predators carry sensors that intercept electronic signals and listen in on phone conversations - and they carry missiles. The newer Reapers cost $US17 million and can fly nearly 6000 kilometres.
The US Air Force now has more drone operators in training than fighter and bomber pilots.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


67 Comments so far
Show AllWell anyway we were talking about drones, and the way they are being used to murder certain people somebody wants to murder. And using drones is cowardly, but also mass murder, because what the drones shoot at ONE GUY are hellfire missiles! so maybe they will take out this one guy "suspected of having ties to al Qaeda" or whatever, but because of the monstrosity of the weapons being used will certainly kill lots of other people- the "target's" family, his neighbors, and anyone else gets in our way. where "our way" could be anywhere in anyone else's country.
sorry to see so many people here tonight fretting about getting hit with possible predators in the future. first because it's so selfish and all about me to worry about such a remote possibility while our missiles are blowing up other people right now, and also because we must try to avoid getting all fearful as our fellow citizens have. that's why they are so easy to manipulate.
The use of drones is not a bit different than bombing from a piloted plane at 10,000 to 30,000 feet in altitude. Either way the pilot has no idea how many civilians he/she has murdered. The drone camera may show even better resolution than human eyesight at high altitude.
Either way the object is to destroy property and kill people and they both are efficient killing machines.
The drones continue to prove to the world population, as Guantanamo, the Iraq invasion & black sites have been doing, that we Americans collectively are the type of brutish cowards against whom any & all methods are perfectly legitimate. No population needs an agitator or a jihad-minded mullah to spread the detestation of this putrescent self-admiring society with its parade of narcissistic monarchs.
"Predators carry sensors that intercept electronic signals and listen in on phone conversations - and they carry missiles. The newer Reapers cost $US17 million and can fly nearly 6000 kilometres"
Just think, a suite of these wonderful machines of peace strategically placed could cover the entire planet, keeping us all safe. Those missiles can even home in on a cell phone number.
Do any of those urban cowboy predator drivers suffer from lesdyxia, sorry, dyslexia?
Hmm, 17 million. Wonder how much profit in the manufacture. Probably a great deal. One of those things looks like they could be make in a garage by someone with a little knowledge of aircraft design and a desire to hit back.
The neocons call this courage.
Firstly, I take exception to the headline chosen by the Sydney Morning Herald. In fact nothing has changed the rules of war and the underlying laws that they must reflect. These devices used by intelligence agencies for robotic assassination in countries where no state of war actually exists with constitutes, even in the exclusive killing of the intended victim, is a clandestine use of lethal force and constitutes a war crime.
There can be no justification for civilian losses in terms of collateral damage because that would mean that there was a war in which they were killed by mistake. Even in war killing civilians is prohibited and a crime. There is NO acceptable level of collateral deaths under the Genève Conventions. What you are doing is murder, especially since there exists no legal state of war in either Afghanistan or Pakistan.
The type of assumptions and actions that are implied in a statement like “four Arabs, presumed to be al-Qaeda associates, died in a strike in the border region” is evidence of the complete cavalier application of international law applied by the US. This is pure Zionist style targeted assassination, which constitutes murder by the government of the United States and nothing else.
It is important to repeat what The American Civil Liberties Union explained in a Freedom of Information application last month: "It appears ... that lethal force is being exercised by individuals who are not in the military chain of command, are not subject to military rules and discipline; and do not operate under any other public system of accountability or oversight."
Let us make a leap of faith for a moment and assume that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. Al Qaeda as a clandestine non-state entity could equally justify morally if not on a legal basis the secondment of aircraft and flying them into buildings in Washington and New York, on the face of it, aimed at FBI and CIA offices of the US Government in the WTC and a military headquarters in the Pentagon, without concern for the collateral deaths on the same basis as the US. If there is a war then what Al Qaeda did can be presented as a successful and legitimate military attack with regrettably large collateral losses. If it is not a war then what the CIA is doing is just murder in the same illegal manner as Al Qaeda. The only question left is, the difference of the legal status of two clandestine entities.
There is no international consensus on a definition of state terrorism although the UN has tried, but for obvious reasons failed, but by any definition that might be considered reasonable there can be no doubt that the use of these weapons to conduct targeted assassinations must fall under state terrorism.
Lucitanian: "...in war killing civilians is prohibited and a crime. There is NO acceptable level of collateral deaths under the Genève Conventions."
Actually, that's not true.
Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
Article 28
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.
Letto, That does not mean that they can be killed at will. The conventions must be read as a whole so also you should include reading the next article:
Article 29.
The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.
(Rather than as your friends in Israel like to imply, and often affect the murder of protected persons. That is why their military are ever more restricted from travelling to certain countries where they will most probably be arrested and tried for their war crimes.
In Fact,
Article 3,
...
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms...
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
Article 4,
Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. ...
(That means if civilians come into your designated military fire zone you are obliged to protect them not assume they are enemy, or that you are free at your discretion to kill them just in case they might be a threat as is often the case in Israel's occupations and sieges and America's illegal wars of aggression.)
"How quaint." -- John Yoo
Lets call these chicken drones by their correct name: NON-SUICIDE BOMBERS!
BABY KILLERS!!
I wonder how a drone operator would feel if, after a long, hard day's work in Las Vegas killing babies in Afghanistan, he or she would come home to a house full of dead family members.
Every man, woman and child should be assigned a personal Reaper drone to watch over them their whole lives. Should they veer in any way from the straight and narrow they can be quickly vaporized and their personal drone reassigned.
We would then be safe from terror forever, and free to slave away silently in the salt-mines of the perpetual corporate state for all eternity.
It is nearly there. They define what a terrorist is and who is on their list as well as their own criteria. They track the cell phones listen in to whom they wish call and use their signal to hone their rocket. There is no legal process to answer to for any decision made. Every killing is arbitrary and the mistakes are abundant, because they believe they don’t need to be precise. There is no one to answer to.
Even on the basis of the justifications of their present stance there is nothing stopping them from widening the scope of their target list.
It reflects pretty badly on the mind set of many Americans and it explains a lot why America gets onto these holes that many of the contributors, even to this broad minded forum, think that they should concern themselves that their country might use this technology against its own people, as if that would have a different order of demerit, as if the lives of American nationals were somehow of a different order of value to them or their government, than any others. All I can say to them is with such a corrupted view of human life, and national and international law, they deserve whatever they get and I have no doubt with the morals and ethics of the people running their country they will get plenty and it will hurt.
Everyone will want one and will be making them in their garages soon. Or maybe the are now.