U.S. denies drone strikes break international law

Yeah but the US also thinks waterboarding isn't torture, zero credibility when ever they open their mouths. Time the US went home shut the doors and worked on actually leading at something again instead of just beating it's chest Tarzan style. Remember all this is about oil and keeping the Zionists happy, no more no less.

U.S. denies drone strikes break international law

Nothing unusual there....international law only applies to countries other than the US...

So is the US telling terrorists, that it is alright for them to use planes or whatever mean to strike US is not a crime?

using drone to kill without asking the host country permission , mean USA just tell everycountries in the international community, that it is ok to do that since the self appoint USA global policeman say no harm done.

US did not send in ground trooper just dropping a few bomb from the sky, is pretty cool, like a Pin in the Cushion!.

To Obama this is all so rational. Here is how it works:

Obama is determined to avoid sending terrorists to prison at Gunatanimo Bay because doing so would be an abuse of their human rights. So instead he sends these small innocuous drones over foreign countries and blows the terrorists into tiny little bits. If you can't understand Obama's rationale then that's your problem - or maybe the Republicans, or Bush, or Fox News, or the AP, or the oil companies, or talk radio ...

Attacking people with drones is like attacking people with dogs. You cannot raise your hands and surrender to drones. It's dehumanizing and savage. Yet it's going to be the trend. The world has become a terrible place to live in.

With no trial, or recourse to justice, condemn the target. Send a drone to kill not just the target but anyone else in the vicinity.

This is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

Hey, Obama, how's that Peace Prize working out for you? You really proved you deserved that. Executing US citizens on foreign soil without trial? Not to mention collateral damage of countless civilians? Yeah, you're a real gem.

The Bush doctrine regarding preemptive action against "enemies" continues to be used by Obama. But then again, most of Bush's policies have remained in place, despite Obama's campaign promises to end them.

Personally, I have no problem with blowing up terrorists, and the terrorists themselves consider being blown up an honor, so it is a win-win situation for both parties involved. Unfortunately, "precision" is a relative term, and a "precision" strike will kill a few terrorists and more than a few bytanders.

The intentional killing of an American citizen in a drone attack set a frightening precedent, and classifying a citizen or group of citizens as eligible for death without due process is unforgiveable, but has been largely overlooked. In this case, a very clear law was violated, but Obama, former professor of constitutional law, saw no problem in allowing the killing to proceed. If the US government is not going to obey it's own laws in regard to drone attacks on it's own citizens, what makes you think they will hesitate for a moment to attack anyone else?

Change we can believe in indeed.

@spudman

Yeah but the US also thinks waterboarding isn't torture, zero credibility when ever they open their mouths. Time the US went home shut the doors and worked on actually leading at something again instead of just beating it's chest Tarzan style. Remember all this is about oil and keeping the Zionists happy, no more no less.

Here we go with the conspiracy theory again. Now it's about the Zionists again? Give me a friggin break! Stop reading Stormfront, it clouds the judgement! Once we did an experiment when I was working for a local paper in San Diego, wrote a piece on water boarding before it became a household name and I have to admit, it was horrible, but after 5 min. I was up, dried off and that was it. No ever lasting problems or affects, NO anything. Therefore it is NOT torture, Yes, it's unpleasant and it's supposed to be as uncomfortable as possible. But torture, NO. Also, how else do you want to get information out of these terrorists? Let me guess, as in pure liberal lunacy logic, make them comfortable, give them a TV, let them watch Tom and Jerry, some milk and cookies and hopefully, they will talk? Riiiight.

@nostromo

Nothing unusual there....international law only applies to countries other than the US...

Yup, that's about right.

@bertie

With no trial, or recourse to justice, condemn the target. Send a drone to kill not just the target but anyone else in the vicinity.

They're terrorists, NO flag, NO country, foreign fighters, NO they don't need a trail, absolutely NOT, NO one told them to be a terrorist. Eye for an eye! Having said that, Obama was the one that didn't want to close Guantanamo (and still NOT closed) but he doesn't want to use the facility, doesn't want to put terrorists in there, so what does he do instead, step up the drone program. Yeah, on regular people that are not involved, I would say, it's a crime, but again, what do you want to do, how do you expect to get vital information. Wars are bad, but innocent people will always be affected by war by being close to the vicinity. Put liberals chose Obama and as long as he is in office, you will hear these reports every few weeks.This is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.

bass4funk Oct. 23, 2013 - 10:37AM JST They're terrorists, NO flag, NO country, foreign fighters, NO they don't need a trail, absolutely NOT, NO one told them to be a terrorist. Eye for an eye!

That's what Bush said about harboring and assisting terrorists in Iraq. The reality is that it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and go along with whatever the distortion is. If you go back to the situation in Iraq, the American people were lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises. People in the U.S. were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein and his direct threat to freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 911. No weapons of mass destruction have yet turned up. Bush assured the public and the world that an attack was necessary to protect American people and the world from terrorism. What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. Regarding the WMD, they have turned up only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, and conventional weapons. The Bush's extensive hype of WMD in Iraq as justification for a preemptive invasion has become more than embarrassing. It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power. Were U.S. troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraqi civilians killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world?

Who would believe the US, "deny" is policy for the US.

I love the name "Reaper"... How long will it be before Reapers are flying above your neighborhood? In some neighborhoods they already are. Better not run that stop sign...

Were U.S. troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraqi civilians killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world?

Yes, Yes, Yes, No, only the poodles; most of the rest of the world saw exactly what was going on.

is the US telling terrorists, that it is alright for them to use planes or whatever mean to strike US is not a crime?

I'm sure they don't think that's the message they're putting out. But it's the exact same rationale the suicide bombers (including 9/11) use, only without the suicide bit.

international law only applies to countries other than the US...

Yup, that's about right.

The arrogance is staggering. Not to mention the hypocrisy.

Yeah, on regular people that are not involved, I would say, it's a crime, but again, what do you want to do, how do you expect to get vital information.

What kind of 'vital information' do you get by blowing people up via remote control?

I have to admit, it was horrible, but after 5 min. I was up, dried off and that was it. No ever lasting problems or affects, NO anything. Therefore it is NOT torture, Yes, it's unpleasant and it's supposed to be as uncomfortable as possible. But torture, NO. Also, how else do you want to get information out of these terrorists? Let me guess, as in pure liberal lunacy logic, make them comfortable, give them a TV, let them watch Tom and Jerry, some milk and cookies and hopefully, they will talk?

You volunteered, had a control safeword and it was a one off experience. Try it where (a) you have no control and are an unwilling participant (B) are asked for information you don't have (c) have no legal rights to protest the said treatment and say it isn't torture. John McCain who experienced in the above conditions calls it torture so please your example is like comparing a friendly punch on the arm to persistent beating.

No surprise at all that there are posters from the US who believe a terrorist can be defined as anyone the US thinks might be a terrorist. These suspects should be immediately executed by being blown to bits by drones of course, along with anyone else who happens to be anywhere near them. No judicial process, no proof, no nothing, just a drone flown by some squaddie at a console somewhere. Do they want to extend this to their internal legal process and just have anyone in the US suspected of a crime be blown to bits in a public place along with any civilians who just so happen to be standing anywhere nearby? Do they really think this kind of action prevents terrorism? If you want me to turn against you, try blowing up my friends and family, because that is one sure way of doing it.

It must be hard to articulate the fear of living in a country with the possibility of unrestrained drones in the skies above you. You cannot meet people, or go to any social gathering for fear that some trigger-happy video-games player in the US might make the judgment that it is safer to take you all out. No brakes on his thumbs. He is also looking for infra-red body profiles in unusual numbers. You cannot accept guests into your thatch-roofed house.

If the Taliban came in an armed group and asked you at the point of a gun for shelter for the night, what would happen if you said no? But then, what would happen if you said yes? Your family will become part of a 'legitimate' target for any passing drone. Just as the surgeon with his laser may burn a few surrounding healthy cells to take out the cancer, some collateral damage is inevitable, and no-one would blame the surgeon.

Ordinary folks in these areas will be living with clenched teeth under conscious stress.

For these reasons, every member of humanity faces a huge problem with ever-increasing numbers and functions and agendas of drones.

@cleo

The arrogance is staggering. Not to mention the hypocrisy.

Why? So now we have to ask permission the international cmanommunity if it is ok to protect ourselves? Of course not and we shouldn't have to. Thinking we have to is the epitome of arrogance.

What kind of 'vital information' do you get by blowing people up via remote control?

Ask Obama, we used to capture them and interrogate them, but those days are over. This president doesn't want that, so let the bombing continue....

@spud

You volunteered, had a control safeword and it was a one off experience. Try it where (a) you have no control and are an unwilling participant (B) are asked for information you don't have (c)

If that is the case, that will be determined very quickly, but most of the time, these guys know that these terrorists DO have a lot of info and intel that is vital and those are the people they concentrate this tactic on.

have no legal rights to protest the said treatment and say it isn't torture. John McCain who experienced in the above conditions calls it torture so please your example is like comparing a friendly punch on the arm to persistent beating.

With all due respect to McCain who served his country, I have the greatest admiration for the man, but he is entitled to his opinion, also McCain was subjected to real brutal torture, not the case going on here. No one is having their fingers cut, bamboo shouts shoved up their finger nails, tied to metal beds and being shocked, that is NOT happening and that WOULD be torture. Actually, so far one of the reasons we were able to get OBL was because we water boarded Khalid Sheik Muhammed, it's a tool to use, NOT the main, but a tool. These terrorists train to try to withstands the effects of water boarding, but from experience, it doesn't work, I held out 12 seconds that was enough for me! I was fine, they are fine, it's NOT torture. What's torture is, hearing liberals constantly moan and gripe about every little thing that NO one is accountable for ANYTHING, we should just let everyone live, have open borders, rack up huge debt and deficits, let criminals walk, treat terrorists like we treat our next door neighbors. I don't feel sorry for these people, they chose to be terrorists, you mess with the bull, you get the horns! To me, hearing and seeing all of this is unbearable REAL torture!

As an American I am very torn on this issue.

Yes I do believe that the US is breaking international law by using drones.

BUT I rather the gov't use drones to target the bad guys instead having American boots on the ground.

The US Military is an extremely blunt weapon. American boots on ground could lead to higher unintended civilian deaths as compared to the deployment of drones.

As an American I am very torn on this issue.

Yes I do believe that the US is breaking international law by using drones.

BUT I rather the gov't use drones to target the bad guys instead having American boots on the ground.

The US Military is an extremely blunt weapon. American boots on ground could lead to higher unintended civilian deaths as compared to the deployment of drones.

Exactly, spot on.

The US Military is an extremely blunt weapon. American boots on ground could lead to higher unintended civilian deaths as compared to the deployment of drones.

Easy solution: go home and defend your own country. Trouble is there isn't enough money to be made in that option, I mean how many times can you fence the borders?

Do you actually think they`d admit that it is wrong?

Safer than boots on the ground? Well... these places are 10000 miles away so why are you there to begin with? Go back home and keep the thugs out of your country and you`ll be okay.

The Pakistanis, Yemenis and others could end this problem right now: go after the bad guys themselves, instead of bleating on about the drones (which are doing the job they refuse to do in their own yard).

Bin Laden was living comfortably with his family... in a Pakistani army town, for crissakes. These countries, which have huge militaries, need to face up to their culpability. If the terrorists were issuing anti-government propaganda, they'd be arrested in a flash.

Bass4

Ask Obama, we used to capture them and interrogate them, but those days are over. This president doesn't want that, so let the bombing continue....

, but most of the time, these guys know that these terrorists DO have a lot of info and intel that is vital and those are the people they concentrate this tactic on.

Do you fail to see the irony in those two statements?

Gitmo interrogations were conducted on countless men later proven to have no connections to terrorists but who now can't be returned cause they hate the US with a burning intensity.

America can win nothing by continuing it's current policy. It needs to HTFU and go back to defense and positive foreign policy.

If they were only killing terrorists, I wouldn't care. But if they're killing innocent civilians, then the drone strikes must stop! Obama, get your act together!

Who would believe the US, "deny" is policy for the US.

For many Americans, 'denial' is also a river in Africa, but they can't tell you exactly where it is in Africa! Bertie is right when he says it is a crime against humanity.

Why? So now we have to ask permission the international cmanommunity if it is ok to protect ourselves? Of course not and we shouldn't have to. Thinking we have to is the epitome of arrogance.

So then, what is the difference between the US and other 'rogue' states who choose to ignore international laws for their own interests?? Those states don't claim a higher moral ground as supposed world leaders and one whose way of life others should aspire too. Your statements echo the empty promise that the American ideal has become...

Law is made by man, and only man can implement it. We think China and Russia are also doing crimes against humanity, but no man implements it. That's how it goes.

Al QAEDA cares about international laws? Do they care about OUR human rights? HELL NO! They do not deserve any pity, any sort of sympathy, along with the Taliban etc..they only understand power, the USA has to let the drones do the talking, KABOOM! Why?? Just look at the rest of the world that tries to compromise with these bastard, blood thirsty terrorists, it does not work, they have to be hunted down and you know, blown up, before they attack us again. Sorry Bass, I hope you do not think I am going a bit too overboard, I do agree with the death penalty and we should not wast our time, $$ unless we can get information out of these terrorists then feed them to the sharks etc..

now we have to ask permission the international cmanommunity if it is ok to protect ourselves

Killing innocent (or not) people in far distant countries does NOTHING to protect the US. Quite the opposite.

What kind of 'vital information' do you get by blowing people up via remote control?

Ask Obama

Obama isn't posting here telling us that killing people in far distant countries by remote control provides 'vital information', you're the one doing that. I take it you have no answer if you have to hide under Obama's skirts.

What's torture is, hearing liberals constantly moan and gripe about every little thing

Aww diddums. You know, don't you, that liberals and terrorists are hiding under your bed just waiting for your Mum to turn out the light?

The only bad thing about drone strikes is that there aren't enough og them.

@spudman

Easy solution: go home and defend your own country. Trouble is there isn't enough money to be made in that option, I mean how many times can you fence the borders?

And we do that. But we CAN and WILL protect our natural interest like any other country would, NO exception. That's the easy solution, works for me just fine.

Gitmo interrogations were conducted on countless men later proven to have no connections to terrorists but who now can't be returned cause they hate the US with a burning intensity.

Then they shouldn't have taken up arms against the US or aligned themselves with the Jihadists, they had a choice, they made it, now they have to deal with them.

America can win nothing by continuing it's current policy. It needs to HTFU and go back to defense and positive foreign policy.

This is NOT a popularity contest! America doesn't need to seek approval from any country to protect itself as I said before. If other countries don't like, they can go and....

@get real

I have no sympathy for terrorists. So, NO.

@michael

If they were only killing terrorists, I wouldn't care. But if they're killing innocent civilians, then the drone strikes must stop! Obama, get your act together!

You are right! No arguments here. I too, abhor the the killings of those innocent civilians, but this is what Obama wants, he doesn't want to apprehend and interrogate targeted terrorists, he thinks shooting everyone is the best way.

@peacewarrior

For many Americans, 'denial' is also a river in Africa, but they can't tell you exactly where it is in Africa! Bertie is right when he says it is a crime against humanity.

Hmmm. I'm sure they know where Africa is, since they brought so many from there to work as slaves on plantation. Come on now... But when the terrorists kill Americans, it's not a crime? Wow!

@nostromo

So then, what is the difference between the US and other 'rogue' states who choose to ignore international laws for their own interests?? Those states don't claim a higher moral ground as supposed world leaders and one whose way of life others should aspire too. Your statements echo the empty promise that the American ideal has become..

Sorry, wrong once again. The US never waged Jihad against Muslims or Jews or Christians and you have Americans strapping bombs and willingly offering themselves to martyrdom in order to kill people. If you can't see the difference in that, then you are seriously misguided.

@El

Sorry Bass, I hope you do not think I am going a bit too overboard, I do agree with the death penalty and we should not wast our time, $$ unless we can get information out of these terrorists then feed them to the sharks etc..

What happened to you?? You finally woke up! Agreed.

@cleo

Killing innocent (or not) people in far distant countries does NOTHING to protect the US. Quite the opposite.

And NOT killing them will stop them either, so we should just wait it out, see if they come to their senses and hope for the best? LOL Keep dreaming. That'll never happen, they won't stop and we won't either, simple as that. You think they will stop attacking Israel?

Obama isn't posting here telling us that killing people in far distant countries by remote control provides 'vital information', you're the one doing that. I take it you have no answer if you have to hide under Obama's skirts.

Ahh, but I do. I know for a fact that many of these people have provided vital intel as exactly what was said or pertinent the intel was is above my pay grade. Of course, they are not taking windy walks with these thugs. As if the CIA, FBI and Homeland doesn't have the knowledge how to find out who these people are. Come on, cleo. I told you before, I have a family member in the field, because of confidentiality agreements, he is not allowed to divulge any sensitive, but what he COULD tell me is that, the world would be beyond amazed if they really knew what they know about these terrorists. That is all that he would tell me. I trust him, the man has no reason to lie about it. Also, I shudder the thought of hiding anywhere near Obama.

Aww diddums. You know, don't you, that liberals and terrorists are hiding under your bed just waiting for your Mum to turn out the light?

What?

It's hard to read these comments from individuals that have never personally dealt with terrorists. These people may look human on the outside, but are zombies on the inside. They have deep beliefs that have taken the place of thier feelings. Their hearts and souls have been removed and are trained to show feelings when they need to if it will assist themin a way to inflict as much damage as possible. Human Rights mean nothing to them and will kill innocent people to include children without remorse.

Do I believe drones should be used? Yes, if I let my feelings get in the way. Colateral damage happens both ways. Drones can cause colateral death to innocent. Terrorist will also cause colateral deaths of innocent people at some point.

These terrorists need to stopped. The reality of the matter is which innocent lives to achieve this goal is more important because either way, each side will take innocent lives.

They have deep beliefs that have taken the place of thier feelings. Their hearts and souls have been removed and are trained to show feelings when they need to if it will assist themin a way to inflict as much damage as possible. Human Rights mean nothing to them and will kill innocent people to include children without remorse.

It's kind of sad that what you wrote also fits the US government.

bass, you're on a roll, aren't you? So much so that you don't need to actually read a question before you answer it. Drunk on bloodlust. Read again.

Yeah, on regular people that are not involved, I would say, it's a crime, but again, what do you want to do, how do you expect to get vital information.

What kind of 'vital information' do you get by blowing people up via remote control?

I know for a fact that many of these people have provided vital intel

You know for a fact that the innocent people who happen to get caught up in a US drone strike have provided vital intel? Come again?

Killing innocent (or not) people in far distant countries does NOTHING to protect the US. Quite the opposite.

And NOT killing them will stop them either, so we should just wait it out, see if they come to their senses and hope for the best? LOL Keep dreaming.

You seem to have missed the important bits first time round, so I'll bold them for you. So now please explain, what exactly do you need to stop these innocent people way over on the other side of the world from doing? What senses do you expect them to come to? Would you say that the people who died in the Twin Towers needed to be 'brought to their senses'? What's the difference between what the terrorists did on 9/11, and what the US is now doing? (apart from the suicide bit)

I trust him, the man has no reason to lie about it.

lol. Sorry, he's your family member an'all, but if he's directly involved in the killing he has every reason to lie about it.

I shudder the thought of hiding anywhere near Obama.

That's exactly what you're doing when you tell people to ask Obama to justify statements you have made.

Hmmm. I'm sure they know where Africa is, since they brought so many from there to work as slaves on plantation. Come on now... But when the terrorists kill Americans, it's not a crime? Wow!

Hmmm, I suggest taking a course in Reading 101 because that's not what I said.

Yeah, they do break the law.

Question: Does continuing to keep these men away from their homes and families (and force feeding some of them several times daily) not ruffle any feathers?

Bass4Funk Answer: I have no sympathy for terrorists. So, NO.

Who mentioned your feathers?

39 comments to reiterate that the rabid right hate President Obama and the International left hate America. Come on people we've more than grasped these simple fundamentals.

The Taliban really don't like drone strikes either, and that's what really matter.

39 comments to reiterate that the rabid right hate President Obama and the International left hate America.

It's not about hating America. It's a great country, with such wasted potential for leadership.

More importantly, it's not about hate. Period. Life's too short and too precious.

Let's respect it, and each other, a bit more.

" The only bad thing about drone strikes is that there aren't enough og them."

Wow. Just Wow. How very liberal. And I thought the liberal party was the anti-war one. Whodathunkit!

So a chap staring at a screen on the other side of the planet can better judge who are civilians and who are the enemy than the eyes of squaddies on the ground? I still remember USAF planes bombing tractors during the Balkans conflict, convinced they were armoured vehicles because they were so high and couldn't properly identify the vehicles..

You need eyes on the ground, spotting for the air strikes... or you kill innocents.

@cleo

you're on a roll, aren't you? So much so that you don't need to actually read a question before you answer it. Drunk on bloodlust. Read again.

Oh, I sure did. I read it, just wanted to make another point, so you're saying I can't?

You know for a fact that the innocent people who happen to get caught up in a US drone strike have provided vital intel? Come again?

I'm not talking those, I never talked about the innocent and if you would have my previous post I said, targeted terrorists at the same time, ask Obama about targeting the suspects and innocents getting hit in the crossfire, his policies.

You seem to have missed the important bits first time round, so I'll bold them for you. So now please explain, what exactly do you need to stop these innocent people way over on the other side of the world from doing?

If you don't understand by now, then I would suggest you read and follow the news.

What senses do you expect them to come to?

To call of their jihad, but I know they never will so...

Would you say that the people who died in the Twin Towers needed to be 'brought to their senses'?

If you are trying to equivocate what happened on 9/11 to the US trying to stop radical Islamists, forget it, you are wasting your time. But nice try.

What's the difference between what the terrorists did on 9/11, and what the US is now doing? (apart from the suicide bit)

The US is not imposing a Christian theology is not on a conquest to have US citizens go abroad to where Arabs are and blow them up in the name of Jesus Christ. You're not going to hear Americans say on national TV like in the UK that UK is our country and we're going to turn it into a Christian fundamental country. Again, nice try, cleo.

@peacewarrior

Hmmm, I suggest taking a course in Reading 101 because that's not what I said.

Don't need to, I know you were talking about Denial just didn't want to answer it at that moment, but to answer your question, there is no denial. Crimes against humanity, I wouldn't apply that to the terrorists.

One thing I do have to say in defense of the drone strikes is that it is the best way to target terrorists in countries that either cannot or will not extradite them (or are funding them and denying it). Take Osama Bin Ladin for example: how did Pakastan NOT know he was living in a fortified bunker less than a mile down the street from their own military academy? For over FIVE years?! If countries want to hinder the prosecution and apprehension of terrorists, I understand the use of drones. I don't like it, but I can understand the logic behind it. However, it won't solve the problem, because every innocent you kill creates at least a handful of new people who hate the US with all that they are.

There is no solution from any side or any angle! For decades terrorists in that region, as well as other regions of this world of ours, have placed themselves in areas where there are at times heavy civilian populations. The reason you might have guessed is for protection! This is plain and simple! When these same terrorists set off car bombs aimed specifically at civilians, do these same watch dog groups raise their moral indignation? I have not read that, perhaps they are afraid of the indiscriminant retaliation these terrorist groups are known for! Terrorism is by virtue of its name exists to paralyze populations into submission Some readers advocate the US withdraw, I agree, do you think the US military want to be in these hell holes! However if you have cockroaches, and you do not use traps and sprays and alike to kill their nests, in a few weeks you will be infested, and overrun. Now many comments have been brought fourth all about withdrawal, and bringing the US to justice however does anyone have any bright ideas as to how to stop terrorism? Except for taking the moral high ground and squawk! I have no idea if you lived in that part of the world, I did and without me beating my chest served in that area of the world as an Captain in Military Intelligence Brigade Strategic Counterintelligence Directorate AFG in Afghanistan among other really great vacation spots in that part of paradise! It is easy to talk when you never served, never protected anything, never put on a uniform and took up arms to fight back! You would wet your pants if you could not get good TV reception! This is and will never be easy, accusations are just that, some of the weaker minds believe everything they read, that is a real pity! Drones save lives, they are laser accurate, and far less lethal than an artillery strike, and like my comment on cockroaches you have to kill the nest to rid yourself of infestation!

Oh, I sure did. I read it

But you didn't answer it.

just wanted to make another point

And what was the point you wanted to make? That you cannot tell the difference between alleged Bad Guys and people who happen to get in the way? That you don't see any difference, just kill 'em all and let Gawd sort 'em out? That it's OK to do unspeakable things to people who have done you no harm because some other people who are psychopaths happen to live in the same country or speak with a similar accent?

I'm not talking those, I never talked about the innocent

The question was about the innocent civilians who happen to be standing too close to someone who looks like he might be a bad guy. Again, you didn't answer the question.

If you don't understand by now, then I would suggest you read and follow the news.

Sigh. We're talking about innocent people, between 400 and 900 people caught up in US trigger-happy drone strikes. They don't appear in the news before the drones find them because they have done nothing news-worthy. they don't appear in the news after the drones find them because there's nothing left of them except a few mangled body parts and anyone releasing video as proof is likely to end up languishing in either a US jail or a Russian airport or a South American embassy, facing trumped-up charges and forever watching their back. So, I ask you again, what is it that these totally non-newsworthy, ordinary civilians that have done nothing to nobody, need to be stopped from doing?

What senses do you expect them to come to?

To call of their jihad

What kind of jihad are these innocent civilians who happen to be standing too close to someone who looks like he might be a bad guy engaged in? Take a long, deep breath before you answer, and remember we're talking about people on the other side of the world who have done nothing wrong bar have the temerity to let themsleves be born in the wrong place and as far as we know are planning nothing wrong.

The US is not imposing a Christian theology is not on a conquest to have US citizens go abroad to where Arabs are and blow them up in the name of Jesus Christ

Instead the US is staying at home where it's safe and having its drones go abroad to where Arabs are and blow them up in the name of Freedumb and The Amerkin Way, which appears to be some kind of extremist religion in its own right. And imposing some kind of weird philosophy that says it's OK to assassinate people without benefit of trial in order to protect - what, exactly?

Bass, you are a classic. If Bush was carrying out drone strikes, you'd be all for them. When Obama carries out drone strikes, you don't like them. Sounds like you have issues with Obama for no real reason other than the fact that he is Obama. Hmmmmm.......

This is irony that some people justify drone attacks. in the second attack in Pakistan the drone hit a school where they killed 85 children from the age of 5 to 14 and the white house declared them all the terrorists and claimed weapons and ammunition in the school. The drone have killed hundreds of innocents people and thousands are now in camps in other parts of Pakistan in order to keep themselves safe. since Pakistan is ally with the US, when ever drone attack happen and kill innocent people the reaction start and the tribes attack the Pakistan military and some civilian targets, so far Pakistan have lost 50 thousand People in this war which started in the reaction of these drones attacks. ironically, no independent organization is allowed to investigate any drone attack, these drone are killing children, women and other innocent people the American either declare them terrorists or call it collective damage.

how can you kill a person with out the due process of law and if you are doing so then what is the difference between a terrorist organization and a civilized country. ,

“The administration has repeatedly emphasized the extraordinary care that we take to make sure counterterrorism actions are in accordance with all applicable law.”

Hey, the U.S. is long used to fighting with one hand tied behind its back.

If even ONE innocent's life is lost to due a dumb drone and its operator, that's too many.

There's a war going on and sometimes civilians get killed by accident, as opposed to the enemy who targets and intentionally hides amongst civilians. Sadly the only way to deal with fanatics is to kill them all, and predator strikes are a damned sight more effective in both cost and lives than boots on the ground.

All about drones killing innocent civilians anything about Car Bombs, Embassy Bombings The Twin Towers on 911? Too many lop sided responses, unless they are all for terrorism and the animals who have racked up so many innocent lives, where are the numbers of those who went out to work, or go shopping, and never returned home! You want real justice then get mad at terrorists!

Is there anything legally distinct about killing people with drones? As opposed to air-strikes, or missile strikes?

If so, I don't see it.

This appears to me to be an old debate, pitting those who think it is tolerable e for a country like the US, in the pursuit of war aims, to kill innocent people v those who do not.

Madverts**** your justification do not work. the attack on Iraq was even opposed by the American and even Oboma called that a wrong war and UN was opposed to it, one and half million Iraqi were killed and still the hell is going on in the in name of civil war. one and half people died and you call it accident?, The marriage parties were attacked, the funeral ceremonies were attacked, the school were attacked, the hospitals were attacked and you call them accidents, who running the unlawful jails and the torture centers.

The problem is that you never consider or value the life of other people on the planet, you count them in number or called them collective damage.

International law? The US is a true sovereign nation, there is only one law that they recognize, their own. This may seem a bit smug but all sovereigns act this way, most just lack the ability to project their sovereignty beyond their own local boarders. And if a US citizen goes into another country he does so knowing that its the law of that land that he must abide by. As to the drones, that being the act of the US government all one needs to do is arrest US governmental agents but you know most if not all nations will not do so knowing full and well what the US government's response would be. So gnash your teeth anti-Americans but the US is not going to put international law before their own nor limit their actions based on this so called law. It's good to be king and with that in mind, drone on Obama...keep them running and their heads ducked. We will get the terrorist wherever they are.

I would have to say that blowing people up in other countries without a declaration of war does fly in the face of international norms. There's just no way this can be considered "normal." I guess you're allowed to do anything to anybody that you label as a terrorist?

You want real justice then get mad at terrorists!

@Frederick Shapiro--We are. Car bombs, suicide vests and predator drones are all weapons of terrorists. Slapping an American flag sticker on a car bomb does not make it any less a weapon of terrorism. Same with drones.

Sadly the only way to deal with fanatics is to kill them all, and predator strikes are a damned sight more effective in both cost and lives than boots on the ground.

@Madverts--There is no need for the U.S. to deal with fanatics on the other side of the planet.

Boots on the ground do not need be battalions. Small strike teams can be very effective and can at least identify actual targets and target only them. You cannot do that from the air. You cannot do that by remote control from Langley. Attempting to is cowardice and terrorism. And if you justify it, you justify the terrorism you opposed in the first place, against fanatics who have killed fewer Americans than traffic accidents and native born murderers.

@cleo

Instead the US is staying at home where it's safe and having its drones go abroad to where Arabs are and blow them up in the name of Freedumb and The Amerkin Way, which appears to be some kind of extremist religion in its own right.

I love technology. Look that is your own opinion. First of all it is NOT a religion. We don't go into other countries in the name of Christian and tell people if they don't follow Christianity they are infidels. We don't go to weddings strap bombs to ourselves and blow up innocent people. Look what these animals did in Kenya, many of the kids were stabbed in the most horrific way, some of the terrorists tortured them, left the knives in them, where is your outrage? I worry about the soldiers going into harms way every day trying to get these thugs. That is more of my concern.

Sorry, nice try

And imposing some kind of weird philosophy that says it's OK to assassinate people without benefit of trial in order to protect - what, exactly?

It is OK to neutralize ANY threat that would kill innocent Americans or trying to destroy anything that is of our natural interests. And NO, these people are terrorists, first of all, they don't need a trial and second, you think that they would come willingly, if we asked them or tried to capture them, some of them wear suicide vests and you think these people deserve a trial. Yeah, I think they deserve something, but NOT a trial.

What kind of jihad are these innocent civilians who happen to be standing too close to someone who looks like he might be a bad guy engaged in? Take a long, deep breath before you answer, and remember we're talking about people on the other side of the world who have done nothing wrong bar have the temerity to let themsleves be born in the wrong place and as far as we know are planning nothing wrong.

As I said, before, soldiers try their best to ascertain the situation before engaging the target, but sometimes, when you go in, things, emotion get out of hand quickly, soldiers always take the most serious precautions as to not hurt or kill innocents, sadly sometimes it goes wrong, but 98% it does not. No one wants to hurt innocent people, that is not what the US is about of course not. I worry about the soldiers, that's my first priority, but I believe they have to go in an root out these scum. You feel for these people, I feel for my people, simple as that.

Sigh. We're talking about innocent people, between 400 and 900 people caught up in US trigger-happy drone strikes.

The US takes great care in limiting casualties when engaging the enemy, unfortunately innocent people will always get in the crossfire. You try to minimize it, but there is no guarantee.

They don't appear in the news before the drones find them because they have done nothing news-worthy. they don't appear in the news after the drones find them because there's nothing left of them except a few mangled body parts and anyone releasing video as proof is likely to end up languishing in either a US jail or a Russian airport or a South American embassy, facing trumped-up charges and forever watching their back. So, I ask you again, what is it that these totally non-newsworthy, ordinary civilians that have done nothing to nobody, need to be stopped from doing?

For one reason, the media does not want to give the terrorists and jihadists too much media exposure, as I said before, no one wants to see innocent people killed, those that engage in purposely killing innocent people will face prison. What happens and how they are prosecuted would be handled in a military court. The real problem is that the jihadists hide among the innocent. That makes the rule of engagement and how it's executed much harder,

The question was about the innocent civilians who happen to be standing too close to someone who looks like he might be a bad guy. Again, you didn't answer the question.

I just did.

And what was the point you wanted to make? That you cannot tell the difference between alleged Bad Guys and people who happen to get in the way? That you don't see any difference, just kill 'em all and let Gawd sort 'em out? That it's OK to do unspeakable things to people who have done you no harm because some other people who are psychopaths happen to live in the same country or speak with a similar accent?

You've never probably seen military combat before, right? You always get emotional and when you do that you lose the argument. You have to understand and put yourself in the soldiers shoes, anything else, is just pure emotion and you can never have a civil rational discussion. Go into combat see what it's like when you have to make split second decisions and don't say, you would never enlist, but what about people that do enlist, every country needs a military and sometimes when they are called for action, they might have to these things and unfortunately, you will always have innocent people involved. Can't be helped.

@seren

Bass, you are a classic. If Bush was carrying out drone strikes, you'd be all for them. When Obama carries out drone strikes, you don't like them. Sounds like you have issues with Obama for no real reason other than the fact that he is Obama. Hmmmmm.......

Sorry, I'm not an ideologue. I support the President on this one, sure, I would like him to apprehend these thugs interrogate them and ship them off to Guantanamo, but those days are over, but this is almost just as good.

We don't go to weddings strap bombs to ourselves and blow up innocent people. Look what these animals did in Kenya, many of the kids were stabbed in the most horrific way, some of the terrorists tortured them, left the knives in them, where is your outrage?

My point exactly. Like I mentioned above, the reality of the matter is which innocent lives to achieve this goal is more important because either way, each side will take innocent lives. The only difference is, the US takes every precaution not to take the lives of innocent people. Whereas terrorists srive to kill as many as possible.

bass, I give up. You have no intention/ability to read what is written or address the issues put to you. You live in a world of your own imagining. All you can see is what you've imbibed in the Koolade, or whatever it is they give you to drink or inhale as you religiously recite the pledge every morning.

First of all it is NOT a religion. We don't go into other countries in the name of Christian and tell people if they don't follow Christianity they are infidels.

The name of your religion isn't Christianity, it's the Merkin Way. The one bears little or no resemblance to the other.

We don't go to weddings strap bombs to ourselves and blow up innocent people.

No, you bomb them from the safety of the skies. Or from a control room thousands of miles away. So much more civilised and less traumatic for the poor soldiers.

Look what these animals did in Kenya

I've seen no reports of the people the US drones are targeting in Pakistan and Yemen doing anything in Kenya, or even being in the country. Who are these animals of whom you speak?

.....Hang on, I think I'm beginning to see your 'logic'; there are bad people in the world so that gives the US the right, nay, the holy obligation, to bomb/drone-zap as many people as possible in parts of the world far from Merka. Pakistan=Yemen=Iraq=Iran=Afghanistan=Kenya=Somalia=Libya=Vietnam=Anywhere where the people are 'different' and that isn't likely/able to strike back. Is that a close approximation?

Just a few days ago there was a very bad person, a 12-year-old animal, who took a gun into a school, shot two kids, killed a teacher and then suicided himself. Maybe the US should be on his case, and start sending drones over Nevada in the hopes of getting a few of the people who may have known this animal? Kill them before they grow and multiply! Why would it not be a good idea to stop all these people in Nevada? What's the difference? That kid and all the others like him who carry out these school/shopping mall/neighbourhood shootings surely pose a much greater and more immediate day-to-day threat to the safety of Americans than do a bunch of semi-illiterate villagers on the other side of the world. What are your drones and military doing about the threat these people pose to Merka?

You have to understand and put yourself in the soldiers shoes

No, I don't. The soldiers are doing a job they chose to do; if they don't like it, they should have chosen a different career. The people they are shooting at, in safety, from a distance, have no such choice. They're just trying to live their lives in the place they were born.

@cleo

bass, I give up. You have no intention/ability to read what is written or address the issues put to you. You live in a world of your own imagining. All you can see is what you've imbibed in the Koolade, or whatever it is they give you to drink or inhale as you religiously recite the pledge every morning.

No, I did, you are just getting emotional.

The name of your religion isn't Christianity, it's the Merkin Way. The one bears little or no resemblance to the other.

Now you know my religion and the religion of most American citizens? Come on now.....lol

No, you bomb them from the safety of the skies. Or from a control room thousands of miles away. So much more civilised and less traumatic for the poor soldiers.

Yes, or you put boots on the ground which then leads to more casualties on both sides. More innocent people will be killed, so pick your poison. Either way, innocent people will get caught up in the crossfire, always happened and always will. Sad, though it may be, but that's the reality.

I've seen no reports of the people the US drones are targeting in Pakistan and Yemen doing anything in Kenya, or even being in the country. Who are these animals of whom you speak?

And you probably won't. You also probably never heard of special elite forces.

.....Hang on, I think I'm beginning to see your 'logic'; there are bad people in the world so that gives the US the right, nay, the holy obligation,

If they attack us or kill or people, absolutely.

to bomb/drone-zap as many people as possible in parts of the world far from Merka.

Not true and you're analysis is convoluted. No one is doing that. 98% the US military performs beautifully.

Pakistan=Yemen=Iraq=Iran=Afghanistan=Kenya=Somalia=Libya=Vietnam=Anywhere where the people are 'different' and that isn't likely/able to strike back. Is that a close approximation?

Yes, with the exception of Vietnam, the other fore mentioned countries harbor what? Radical terrorists, jihadists. We don't care what the world thinks, they target innocent Americans worldwide, that will be met with a quck response or you are probably just let them walk and apologizing, for what? Obama already did that and they still want to kill us, so I'm all for the US doing whatever the country needs to do to fight radical Islam,

Just a few days ago there was a very bad person, a 12-year-old animal, who took a gun into a school, shot two kids, killed a teacher and then suicided himself.

Sad, yes, I think so. But I do think he was animal. I feel bad for the parents and the other kids, not for the shooter.

Maybe the US should be on his case, and start sending drones over Nevada in the hopes of getting a few of the people who may have known this animal?

They can't because he offed himself.

Kill them before they grow and multiply! Why would it not be a good idea to stop all these people in Nevada? What's the difference? That kid and all the others like him who carry out these school/shopping mall/neighbourhood shootings surely pose a much greater and more immediate day-to-day threat to the safety of Americans than do a bunch of semi-illiterate villagers on the other side of the world. What are your drones and military doing about the threat these people pose to Merka?

You're getting way off topic. Also very different circumstances, scenarios and now you are comparing apples and oranges. But if you want to know, I think they should build and reopen mental institutions that would be a start. Also, these people are not radical Islamist, they are Americans, they are not suicide bombers, they are not hiding behind veils they are not all over the place living and staying with people that want to impose a caliph. Sorry, not the same thing, but nice try again my dear.

No more bickering please.

Funny things...It seems that the Pakistani Gov. was not only aware about the drones strikes but were actively briefed on them and gave their approval for the strikes to occur. But of course as is the standard MO, they act outraged at the US when the strikes cause collateral damage. Remember this whole ongoing mess is due to the Pakistani Government not being in full control of its own territory. They can't even exert control of their own northern tribal region and so have happily let the big bad Uncle Sam do the heavy lifting for them in confronting the radical Islamist who rule that area. Drone on Obama!

Gee Bass, don't you ever wonder why so many countries really hate the US?

It isn't hard to figure out if you dig a bit.

The only difference is, the US takes every precaution not to take the lives of innocent people.

@TheDevilsAssistant--Any sort of bombing from the air into civilian areas is merely taking every precaution to save SOLDIER's lives, and runs so counter to the idea of saving the lives of innocent people and so callous and careless that it amounts to trying to kill innocents. It is terrorism AND murder. You cannot surrender to an incoming bomb or missile.

The use of drones is even more heinous. Inherently because its that much harder to verify that innocents are not in the strike zone. But then you have the methods used, and those have innocuous titles like "pattern of life" and "secondary strikes" that are designed to sugar coat outrageous behavior much like the term "collateral damage". Frankly I think even your run of the mill terrorist has the decency to call a spade a spade.

"Pattern of life" is a half-assed attempt to determine if someone is a combatant or not by spying on them from the air. Then you don't ascertain if their house contains children, you just bomb their house. Can you imagine if American soldier's houses started getting bombed?? "Secondary strikes" are when after blowing up a house, they wait for people to go to that house and try to find survivors. Nearby residents, firemen, ambulance crews who respond tend to get murdered in them. And the U.S. is not exactly telegraphing this methodology. The people have had to figure this out by watching people die. Not that they always know why a house blew up.

In 8 years in Pakistan, American drone strikes have killed 176 children. About 3000 people have been killed an average 600 were civilians. One-fifth civilians. And that is just Pakistan, a country we are not even at war with. I have not gotten to Afghanistan and Yemen yet. Not that data is easy to come by as the U.S. government refuses to provide much about the drones and how do you determine who was a militant when only bits of them are left in the rubble of their own home? Does this really sound to you like a serious attempt to avoid civilian casualties??

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html

@control

In 8 years in Pakistan, American drone strikes have killed 176 children. About 3000 people have been killed an average 600 were civilians. One-fifth civilians. And that is just Pakistan, a country we are not even at war with.

Do you know how much money with give to Pakistan?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/05/11/did-pakistan/

They gave sanctuary to OBL, they knew all along that he was there, they aided and abided the enemy. Of course, we are at war with them, which is why I don't understand why we help and give aid to that country. It is a complete outrage! That was much more of a concern for me.

In 8 years in Pakistan, American drone strikes have killed 176 children. About 3000 people have been killed an average 600 were civilians. One-fifth civilians. And that is just Pakistan,

If we are going to compare here, how many children and civilians have terrorists killed in eight years? You think the numbers are close?

Of course, we are at war with them

What?? When did the US formally declare war on Pakistan? Maybe the wiki entry that claims Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally as part of the War on Terrorism and provides key intelligence and logistical support for the United States. is out of date? Was there an important news flash that I missed?

If we are going to compare here, how many children and civilians have terrorists killed in eight years?

There are between 4000 and 5000 traffic fatalities in Japan each year, does that mean it's OK for non-drivers to throw stones at drivers of vehicles, regardless of how they drive? Heck, not only drivers but anyone reckless enough to be in or near a motor vehicle?

Vehicle drivers don't train to kill people. If you see a vehicle with a bomb strapped to the front of it, hell yeah! Throw anything you want at it.

Vehicle drivers don't train to kill people

The between 400 and 900 civilians killed by US drone strikes in Pakistan and the 400+ killed in Yemen didn't train to kill anyone, either - but they're fair game?

And it's okay for all the civilians to be killed by terrorists? They are fair game?

@cleo

What?? When did the US formally declare war on Pakistan?

It doesn't have to officially declare war TO be at war with Pakistan, if NOT, there wouldn't have been a need to go in and kill OBL in that covert operation.

Maybe the wiki entry that claims Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally as part of the War on Terrorism and provides key intelligence and logistical support for the United States. is out of date? Was there an important news flash that I missed?

They do, that's just one side of the coin, but unofficially, we are at a war with them. Also, you use Wiki as a source, Oh, good lord....

There are between 4000 and 5000 traffic fatalities in Japan each year, does that mean it's OK for non-drivers to throw stones at drivers of vehicles, regardless of how they drive? Heck, not only drivers but anyone reckless enough to be in or near a motor vehicle?

Japan can do whatever it wants, I really don't care. We do what we need to do to protect our citizens, simple as that.

Interesting to see the would-be defenders of American violence compare American violence with that of the terrorists. Allow me to advise you: that is not a good argument to make.

I have a question for the down-with-American-Imperialism!!! crowd too:

do you really think, oh, Islamic Jihad, will ever stop? Do you the can be reasoned with? Is violence against them never part of the answer?

I don't get it, the critics of using drones seem to miss the major point...the local government, Pakistan, is not just ok with the US drones they are actively supporting the US and are fully aware of the use of drones. Why shouldn't the US with local governmental approval seek to hit the enemy where they live? What are supposed to do, sit back and watch as terrorist, who don't acknowledge national boarders, plan carry out attacks simply because they have chosen to hide in a region where local control is not fully established by the local government. If they government, in this case Pakistan, is ok with the use of drones then that should be all the litmus test that need be conducted by the US when they think of how to use these modern effective battlefield weapon systems. The critics seem overly sympathetic to the arguments and concerns of the enemy over that of the Pakistani government or the US government, who these radical Islamist have declared war upon. Why, because many are willing to jump in bed with the Devil if it means getting a stick in against the US.

@JT

Interesting to see the would-be defenders of American violence compare American violence with that of the terrorists. Allow me to advise you: that is not a good argument to make.

Not trying to make an argument, the facts speak for itself, if you can't see the fundamental in that we are fighting radical Islam, then I don't know what to tell you, but stop drinking the fruity Kool-aid. When you see Christian suicide bombers going around and wanting to impose a caliph, then you have the right to make that kind of idiotic statement.

I have a question for the down-with-American-Imperialism!!! crowd too:

Sorry, but the US is not imperialistic. But please, humor us.

do you really think, oh, Islamic Jihad, will ever stop?

No

Do you the can be reasoned with?

No

Is violence against them never part of the answer?

When it comes to radical Islam, by ANY means necessary.

And it's okay for all the civilians to be killed by terrorists?

How does Americans killing civilians stop terrorists killing civilians? And what's the difference, apart from the terrorists doing it because they're told to by the mullahs and the Americans doing it because they're told to by their commanding officers?

It doesn't have to officially declare war TO be at war with Pakistan

...so all the stuff I hear every December about the Japanese being devilish fiendish for attacking Pearl Harbor without declaring war is just so much hype? That was really all hunky-dory?

We do what we need to do to protect our citizens

So I ask you too, how does America killing Pakistani and Yemeni civilians by the hundred do anything to protect American civilians? And please don't repeat the same old drivel about 'these people are bad and want to kill us'. They're not the terrorists, they're ordinary people like you and me who just happen to have had the misfortune to have been born in a country where some bad people live.

How does Americans killing civilians stop terrorists killing civilians?

It doesn't. Killing terrorists stop terrorists from killing civilians.

And what's the difference, apart from the terrorists doing it because they're told to by the mullahs and the Americans doing it because they're told to by their commanding officers?

Drones target specific targets. Terrorists target anyone as long as it's as many people as possible...even their own countrymen.

who just happen to have had the misfortune to have been born in a country where some bad people live.

Then you would think that country would take these individualp out before the drones came flying over the hills.

the critics of using drones seem to miss the major point...

No, it's the supporters of the drones who miss the point. Every criticism is met with cries of 'Oh but these are bad people we are targetting'. The problem is the people who are not (we are told) being actively targetted, but who get killed anyway for the crime of just being there, walking down the street or sitting at home.

the local government, Pakistan, is not just ok with the US drones they are actively supporting the US and are fully aware of the use of drones

If the government of Pakistan is 'OK' with the strikes, why was the Pakistani PM in Washington this week telling Obama to Stop It?

Yes, there have been reports that past governments, notably that of Musharraf, have not only allowed but actively supported the strikes; but that was then, this is now. The current government (Sharif was elected in June of this year) wants the killing to stop; it should stop.

The critics seem overly sympathetic to the arguments and concerns of the enemy

No. It's the hundreds of dead civilians that are the problem.

but who get killed anyway for the crime of just being there, walking down the street or sitting at home.

And the people that were in the Trade Centers were just there also

. Those passengers on those planes were just trying to get somewhere. What was the crime for Iraqis going to a family wedding and getting blown up by a terrorists? They were all civilians doing what they were doing. It works both ways. Sad but true.

@cleo

No, it's the supporters of the drones who miss the point. Every criticism is met with cries of 'Oh but these are bad people we are targetting'. The problem is the people who are not (we are told) being actively targetted, but who get killed anyway for the crime of just being there, walking down the street or sitting at home.

And that's said, but nothing you can do about it.

If the government of Pakistan is 'OK' with the strikes, why was the Pakistani PM in Washington this week telling Obama to Stop It?

Who cares, the Pakistani government lied to us, knowing the whole time that OBL was their guest. Who'd do you think set him up to live there. The man lived a few blocks away from the Pakistan military training academy.

The current government (Sharif was elected in June of this year) wants the killing to stop; it should stop.

Sure. Once they can assure us that they can handle their radical islamist problem, go in an arrest or (preferably) kill them and REALLY truly wants to be an ally to the US, he needs to give the US a solemn promise first, then we can stop, otherwise, we have to show them, this is what happens why you wage Jihad against the people try to help you.

No. It's the hundreds of dead civilians that are the problem.

And there are hundreds of dead American soldiers as we'll.

How does Americans killing civilians stop terrorists killing civilians?

Innocent people will always get into the crossfire. As long as that happens and it will in everywhere country, then I suggest to stop living. That is the world and it's ugly, but it's the truth.

And what's the difference, apart from the terrorists doing it because they're told to by the mullahs and the Americans doing it because they're told to by their commanding officers?

kill is kill, however the message is, the mullahs kill us because we are infidels that is the start and root cause of it.

...so all the stuff I hear every December about the Japanese being devilish fiendish for attacking Pearl Harbor without declaring war is just so much hype? That was really all hunky-dory?

Well, you DO know how that turned out.

So I ask you too, how does America killing Pakistani and Yemeni civilians by the hundred do anything to protect American civilians? And please don't repeat the same old drivel about 'these people are bad and want to kill us'.

But you are doing it. I already answered you again, it's NOT going to change.

They're not the terrorists,

No one said, they were.

they're ordinary people like you and me who just happen to have had the misfortune to have been born in a country where some bad people live.

What about the people on 9/11? They were people as well. The USS Cole, the Kenyan mall etc, these thugs stabbed children and why? Because they were Christian and or Americans? Some of these kids were tortured. Some were stabbed and they left the knives in them, so they died a horrible death. Cleo, where is your outrage and condemnation about that? That's right and many of them are unfortunate to live with these terrorists, helping them, when you go into a combat, you have to make sure you secure the area and neutralize ANY possible threat, which they do usually. They follow strict protocol procedures. But as long as these people live with these cowards that hide, often wear woman's clothing to blend in, so that it confuses Americans, where is your outrage?!!! These thugs know what they are doing, they are essentially turning these INNOCENT people into human shields, they hide among the children and YES, the US exercises extreme caution, but sadly some of these people DO get killed and will unfortunately will continue to do, the Jihadist don't care, because they know people like you will think and look at them as innocent and that it could have been done another way, sorry, it can't. If you think, a high value target we have in our sights, we are just going to walk away and just hope for the best? Get him when they are around innocent people, sadly, they do not. And you have to make a critical decision. These people have zero qualms about killing ANY kid and these people will surrender, sorry, NEVER. I feel sorry for the innocent, because if we don't stop them, they will surely kill us, if they have a chance. If a child comes at me strapped with a suicide vest and is ready to activate the bomb and the only way from getting him to stop and killing a lot of people and I have a gun, guess what, the kid will get popped. Just like that. Sadly ONE kid had to die, but I saved over 15 people. That's how it is.

USA, self appoint global policeman, can do no wrong, they are the only super power in the whole world. That can make all the wrongs they did seen rights, they can hacks and spies it is alright, but when the table are turn , they will cried foul.

That is what being the only super power, self appoint global policeman like a Pin in the Cushion.

USA, self appoint global policeman, can do no wrong, they are the only super power in the whole world. That can make all the wrongs they did seen rights, they can hacks and spies it is alright, but when the table are turn , they will cried foul.

That is what being the only super power, self appoint global policeman like a Pin in the Cushion.

When you are always taking care of other countries, nation building, giving people assistance globally, socially, economically, friends and often foes. I would say, Yes, we are. And again, the spying is done by everyone, repeat, EVERYONE.

@control

Terrorist philosophy? Hardly, but good one, it did make me chuckle.

Who cares

That kinda sums you up, doesn't it, bass?

Sure. Once they can assure us that they can handle their radical islamist problem

If it's their problem, why not leave them to it?

there are hundreds of dead American soldiers as we'll

Not sure what the apostrophe signifies, but to borrow your own phraseology, this is what happens when you sign up for the military and go strutting into other folks' countries armed to the eyeballs; people try to kill you. That's the nature of the job. it's ugly, but it's the truth. Sorry, but soldiers on one side and innocent civilians on the other side is not a balanced equation and never will be.

Innocent people will always get into the crossfire

What 'crossfire'? The firing is all one-way.

kill is kill, however the message is, the mullahs kill us because we are infidels

...and the drones kill us just because we happen to be there? If you're trying to take the moral high ground here, I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.

Well, you DO know how that (Pearl Harbor) turned out.

Yes, the ones who attacked without declaring war got it handed to them. The ones attacking Pakistan without declaring war are the US. You still don't see the irony?

I already answered you again, it's NOT going to change

Nothing anyone writes on a comments page on the internet is ever going to change anything. But that wasn't the question, as well you know. I'll take that as yet another 'I can't answer that so I'll ...oh look, a squirrel!' response from you, there's quite a collection of them now.

What about the people on 9/11? They were people as well.

lol. If you are trying to equivocate what happened on 9/11 to the US trying to stop radical Islamists, forget it, you are wasting your time. But nice try. Now who is that a direct quote from, bass?

often wear woman's clothing to blend in, so that it confuses Americans

Oh goodness gracious me, now people are getting killed in their homes because Americans are confused?? So it isn't all about fighting extremist religion, or saving the greatest number of lives, it's because Americans are confused? You know I spend a lot of my time confused (especially when I'm reading your posts) but it don't make me wanna kill people because someone else is wearing a frock, fcs.

Anyone who is that easily confused has no business being a soldier, or carrying any kind of weapon.

they know people like you will think and look at them as innocent

Bass, they are innocent. You just cannot wrap your head around that, can you?

If a child comes at me strapped with a suicide vest and is ready to activate the bomb and the only way from getting him to stop and killing a lot of people and I have a gun, guess what, the kid will get popped. Just like that. Sadly ONE kid had to die, but I saved over 15 people.

Walter Mitty.

That kinda sums you up, doesn't it, bass?

Hey, I'm a straight forward guy. What can I say?

If it's their problem, why not leave them to it?

Because they NEVER do and so we just have to do it for them, simple.

Not sure what the apostrophe signifies,

it was a typo, it happens, my bad. 45 WD a min. cut me some slack.

but to borrow your own phraseology, this is what happens when you sign up for the military and go strutting into other folks' countries armed to the eyeballs; people try to kill you. That's the nature of the job. it's ugly, but it's the truth. Sorry, but soldiers on one side and innocent civilians on the other side is not a balanced equation and never will be.

This is true, but no one is trying to kill anyone innocent, geez, been around this block so many times with you. Nothing you can do about it. I care about the innocent people, but I care more for our troops and their safety, when engaging a hostile target. They do whatever they can to minimize the threat, but there is no guarantee, that's the nature of the job.

What 'crossfire'? The firing is all one-way.

I'm talking about when it involves a terrorist that engages in a firefight.

...and the drones kill us just because we happen to be there? If you're trying to take the moral high ground here, I'm sorry, but I just don't see it.

Right back at you.

Yes, the ones who attacked without declaring war got it handed to them. The ones attacking Pakistan without declaring war are the US. You still don't see the irony?

No irony here. Two different scenarios, if you don't understand that, nothing I can help you with.

I'll take that as yet another 'I can't answer that so I'll ...oh look, a squirrel!' response from you, there's quite a collection of them now.

I did, you are just NOT happy with the answer I gave you. And the ad hom attacks are cute, but are always from people that feel like they are losing the debate, no need for that, please keep it civil.

lol. If you are trying to equivocate what happened on 9/11 to the US trying to stop radical Islamists, forget it, you are wasting your time. But nice try. Now who is that a direct quote from, bass?

No, I am just saying that, they were innocent people as well, where is your selective outrage now?

Oh goodness gracious me, now people are getting killed in their homes because Americans are confused?? So it isn't all about fighting extremist religion, or saving the greatest number of lives, it's because Americans are confused? You know I spend a lot of my time confused (especially when I'm reading your posts) but it don't make me wanna kill people because someone else is wearing a frock, fcs.

Because you have never seen war, so you can say that with such ease. Which makes you unqualified to question how a military operation is conducted. Like I said, you have never seen combat, therefore, your irrationality is apparent, you make it seem like it is so easy to go in shoot the target and 100% avoid from shooting innocent people, that is not dealing with reality. You get confused because you don't want to see or understand the truth, you are using emotion to justify a point and that will not work...ever.

Anyone who is that easily confused has no business being a soldier, or carrying any kind of weapon.

Once again, you proved to me, I was right. Thank you.

Bass, they are innocent. You just cannot wrap your head around that, can you?

Oh, I can. But I don't think you can. There is a reason why all journalists wear a vest with PRESS written on it. We all can get confused, even the Brits, Russians, Chinese etc.. No one is immune from it.

This coming from a person with guilt.

Remote-control killer's 'confession' Drone

"I WATCHED him die. It took a long time." These are the chilling words of a retired US drone operator, describing his actions in Afghanistan. Airman First Class Brandon Bryant, who spoke out in a bid to raise public awareness, describes a string of disturbing incidents - including being told to cover up his fears that a child had been killed, after photo checks showed the blurry body could have been a dog.

http://www.news.com.au/world/retired-us-drone-operator-tells-of-the-turmoil-he-feels-after-killing-by-remote-control/story-fndir2ev-1226746447041

we just have to do it for them, simple

No, it's their country, let them deal with their own problems.

I care about the innocent people

No you don't. I care is the exact opposite of Who cares, a sentiment you've repeated many times.

I'm talking about when it involves a terrorist that engages in a firefight.

Then you're on the wrong thread. This is about drone strikes. There is no firefight, just one-way remote sniping from the safety of an office in Nevada or wherever.

I am just saying that, they were innocent people as well, where is your selective outrage now?

So you'll be (rightly) outraged about the people in NY who didn't deserve to die, but not in the least bit concerned about the people in Pakistan who equally didn't deserve to die and whose deaths are being perpetrated in your name by your government and funded by your taxes?

Like I said, you have never seen combat

Neither have the people going about their daily lives until the drones fly over. Your point?

There is a reason why all journalists wear a vest with PRESS written on it.

So now anyone in deepest darkest rural Pakistan who isn't wearing a PRESS jacket as they go about their daily business running the family shop that some alleged would-be terrorist buys a loaf of bread from, is asking to be shot from the air along with his whole family watching telly in the back room, by some spotty-faced kid thousands of miles away? How does the spotty-faced kid check on the PRESS jackets of the people inside the house he's about to blow up?

Give me strength.

@cleo

No, it's their country, let them deal with their own problems

That's not for you or me to decide and methinks this will go on, tragic as in any death, no one wants or likes a war, but as long as these countries harbor terrorists and do nothing to stop them from killing Americans and continue to wage jihad, the US will take care of it, regardless whether they be Republican or Democrat. You can fume all you want, but the policy won't change, Obama will NEVER put boots on the ground which would be better and riskier to make more precise surgical strikes. For him, using drones is better. I generally tend to disagree, but if it can minimize US casualties, so be it.

No you don't. I care is the exact opposite of Who cares, a sentiment you've repeated many times.

So because YOU say, I don't care empathically makes it so?? Really? I care, but I care more for our people. I have that right as you have the right to care for whomever you wish.

Then you're on the wrong thread. This is about drone strikes. There is no firefight, just one-way remote sniping from the safety of an office in Nevada or wherever

Sorry, but no one is purposely targeting innocent people for the sport or sheer pleasure of it.

So you'll be (rightly) outraged about the people in NY who didn't deserve to die, but not in the least bit concerned about the people in Pakistan who equally didn't deserve to die and whose deaths are being perpetrated in your name by your government and funded by your taxes?

Not true, I do care, but this is a war on terror and if the innocent people are shacked up with the terrorists, the only is that the soldiers will and usually try their best to limit collateral damage. But in wars, people die. I've seen it up close, I have no illusion about the harsh reality

Neither have the people going about their daily lives until the drones fly over. Your point?

Already made it numerous times, please leave the emotion out of the debate.

So now anyone in deepest darkest rural Pakistan who isn't wearing a PRESS jacket as they go about their daily business running the family shop that some alleged would-be terrorist buys a loaf of bread from, is asking to be shot from the air along with his whole family watching telly in the back room, by some spotty-faced kid thousands of miles away? How does the spotty-faced kid check on the PRESS jackets of the people inside the house he's about to blow up?

You're not getting the point. We wear those jackets so that we don't get a bullet in the head, so that people on both sides know that we are a neutral group. When you are in a war, point being, the people that are around the terrorists don't have that luxury, so to weed out what is friend or foe becomes a challenge and anxiety and alertness is at an all time high, because of the fact that these soldiers try to take care. Look you don't have to like any of it, but nothing is going to change, nothing until these terrorists stop using human shields to stage attacks against us. If you don't like it, sorry, but you just have to deal with it. Give me strength.

cleo, how do you suggest that terrorists be dealt with? I'm all for keeping innocents from being killed. But, keep in mind, the more time it takes to take out just one terrorist, the more innocent people they will kill.

I'm afraid that these so called "rights" groups are badly out of touch with reality. What about the US people's rights to live in safety? From a US standpoint, this trumps all. Every country does what it can to keep its people safe, and if the US has the capability to keep my family safe by reaching across the world and neutralizing threats, then as a voter, I demand it be done. Any politician who even seems hesitant about his desire to protect Americans will never get my vote.

how do you suggest that terrorists be dealt with?

Your question seems to assume that the drone strikes are 'dealing with terrorists'. Let's say the strikes kill 5 terrorists for every innocent civilian caught up as collateral. Between 400 and 900 dead civilians in Pakistan would mean between 2000 and 4500 dead terrorists. Bull. The terrorists (supposedly) keep on coming....the problem is not being 'dealt with'.

What about the US people's rights to live in safety? ....the US has the capability to keep my family safe by reaching across the world and neutralizing threats

How does killing women and children on the other side of the world help keep a single American safe? You're not neutralising threats, you're exacerbating them. Every civilian you kill in your cowardly attempts to 'stay safe' and 'deal with terrorists' is likely to spawn one more husband/son/daughter/grandparent/sweetheart/friend/neighbour who hates America and Americans for the wreckage you have made of their life.

@Bassfunk, so we agree that we both hate terrorists?? WOW!! but I have no respect for soft, oh the poor terrorist got blown up and geez why did the bad bad USA have to also blow up his wife, kids, pets, etc...when BUSH told the world either you are with us OR against us, the USA was not kidding!! We must hunt down all of these low down terrorist coward dogs AND MAKE THEM PAY HELL!!! IMHO They want to kill us all!! Cleo, that means you and me, our families etc..terrorists are evil!!!

＞terrorists are evil!!!

No argument from me on that. Whichever side they are on.

What about the US people's rights to live in safety? ....the US has the capability to keep my family safe by reaching across the world and neutralizing threats

How does killing women and children on the other side of the world help keep a single American safe?

Cleo, I didn't say anything about women and children. I said "threats."

Tapped danced around the question? If you condemn the drones then you should have a better solution?

@TheDevilsAssistant

I'm starting to see a pattern of that "tap dancing" around issues. It seems to go, "I'm right, you're wrong." "Why?" "For a reason that isn't connected to what you said." It's quite a dishonest way of discussing an issue. I've noticed people seem to knock that off when Facebook comments are used and they have to let their real name show.

The rest of the World who takes US money/aid and wants access to US needs to realize that there are certain realities. If a country harbors people or entities that are enemies of the US then the US will take action. If for instance Pakistan, who takes millions of dollars from the U.S. is not willing or unable to take care of terrorists within it's borders then, a drone strike is cheap and effective.

I didn't say anything about women and children. I said "threats."

The 400-900 civilians that have been killed were not 'threats', they were 'collateral'.

Tapped danced around the question? If you condemn the drones.....

Tap dancing? As opposed to waltzing round the problem fingers in ears, singing lalalalaIcan'thearyou, like the 'But but but the terrorists are out to get us' crowd are doing? I don't condemn the drones as such - I'm sure they have quite legitimate uses. It's what the US is doing with the drones that is the problem; killing innocent civilians. The better 'solution' would be to pay more than lip service to your own claims to respect for justice, human rights and the moral high ground, and stop killing civilians. It isn't rocket science.

Cleo, but that's not what I was referring to, and not what I'm talking about.

that's not what I was referring to, and not what I'm talking about.

Then you're off topic, because that's what the article is about.

Then you're off topic, because that's what the article is about.

I'm not. The article is about drone strikes, and I say I support them so long as they neutralize threats against the American people.

The article is about drone strikes

The article is about criticism from rights groups ..... detailing civilian casualties in a number of U.S. operations in Pakistan and Yemen. It's about the claims that the drone strikes are in violation of international law. It also states that the U.S. “refuses to release detailed information about individual strikes.”, so you have no way at all of knowing how much 'neutralizing' of 'threats' (aka secret extrajudicial executions) has taken place.

If the US authorities are so sure they are identifying the right people, and if the purpose of the strikes is to protect Americans, why not simply put the names of all these 'threats' on a list, and deny anyone on the list entry to the US? That protects the homeland and prevents innocent people getting killed by mistake - and anyone mistakenly put on the list would merely be denied entry to the US, which is surely much better than the alternative, being summarily killed along with half your village because of an Ooops by some over-eager button-pusher in a remote office.

human rights and the moral high ground, and stop killing civilians. It isn't rocket science.

Still haven't come up with a solution, huh?

Human rights and moral high ground? Um, no. You talk a good talk about moral high ground and human rights. what about the other side? Where is the human rights for the thousands and thousands of people killed by terrorists? If the drones fall under your fantasy of being illegal, unconstitutional or whatever you see it as, is it safe to say you are giving terrorists an upper hand to hide behind another layer of camouflage? You're way of thinking will give these terrorists an invisible cloak.

As I said, nobody wants to kill civilians...except terrorist. Give me a viable option that will take out terrorists without some collateral damage. The world is waiting. It is rocket science...

Still haven't come up with a solution, huh?

I've suggested a means of protecting Americans from terrorists, since so many pro-drone posters have claimed the purpose of the drone strikes is to 'protect American lives'. Now you're saying the purpose is not to protect Americans, but the 'take out' terrorists? Well you've been doing it your way for years now and still the 'terrorists' keep coming (apparently...) , which would seem to suggest that what you're doing now isn't working. When that happens maybe what's needed (as with the Japanese education system) is not to just keep on doing the same only more so, but to try something different?

The drone strikes are not solving the problem of the terrorists, and pose the additional problem of killing innocent people. Either one is reason enough to stop.

Cleo, I'm not American, however I do have a close connection to the war on terror. What the American military has done so far in the war on terror is commendable. Speaking as a person that has worked on the front lines against terrorism , I have seen the good, the bad and the ugly on the issue. I can see that while we, "Military personnel from most every country" are protecting your freedom so you can voice your opinions and say that those that have been killed by terrorists have no rights is apalling. You mention that drones strikes have not cured the problem, however you fail to state any solutions. Will terrorism ever end? Probably not. But if my country or any country can exterminate high ranking terrorists, then the lives we have saved is substantial compared to the lives lost if we ignore the problem.

How many died in the car bomb in Syria a few days ago? Had "we" had information before hand, that would have been that many lives saved. You can keep preaching your sermons, but until you can see first hand how these terror organizations work, the intracacies of the planning that they do and the way they purposely stay invisible while hiding among human shields,then you will never understand the importance of drones strikes.

You keep saying stop. You mention trying something different. That's what I'm asking...what do you suggest? Ignoring the problem? Letting terrorists run rampant and let them kill whoever and how many they want? This war is nothing compared to even the worst, most violent Japanese School. It is reality and I suggest that you brace this reality. A terrorists wouldnot think twice about killing you for their cause. Our job is to stop that from happening with the information gathered at any given time.

Well of course the drone strikes are against international law - international law hasn't yet caught up with terrorists' tactics that require that we take them out wherever and whenever we can.

you can voice your opinions and say that those that have been killed by terrorists have no rights

What??

You mention that drones strikes have not cured the problem, however you fail to state any solutions.

Your argument is a total non-sequitur. A man beats his wife because his football team loses; it's pointed out to him that beating the wife does nothing to make his team play any better. His response is that in the absence of any better 'solution' he may as well keep on beating his wife. At least it makes him feel like he's doing something.

if my country or any country can exterminate high ranking terrorists, then the lives we have saved is substantial compared to the lives lost if we ignore the problem.

And the innocent lives lost as collateral to exterminating the terrorists? They count for nothing?

This war...

Which war? You mention car bombs in Syria; are you suggesting that if 'we' had had prior information, drones would/could have been used to stop it happening? Unlike Pakistan and Yemen, Syria has an alert, robust defence system of ground-to-air missiles and radar to detect and shoot down fast-moving warplanes; the slower-moving drones would be easy pickings. So please explain how drones would have been of any use in stopping the Syrian car bomb - or any other military/terror activity in Syria.

A terrorists wouldnot think twice about killing you for their cause.

And if I were to find myself walking down a street in Pakistan or Yemen on the wrong day or near the wrong people, neither, it seems, would the Americans.

LoL! First you compare something as terrorism to a Japanese school and now wife beating? Nice, cleo...really nice.

You still mention collateral damage from drone strikes, but still haven't alluded to the many more killed by terrorist. You have not on any occasion taken into consideration the innocent people that have died at the hands of terrorists, You only go on about the few...and yes I said few compared to the numbers that die at the hands of these terrorists. As long as they keep killing MANY innocent lives, militaries worldwide will keep eradicating these terrorists and keep collateral damage FEW.

You know, they don't wake up one day and magically become a terrorist. They are trained, some as well as military personnel. If they had a heart, they would stay away from family...or hell, not even become a terrorist. It's their choice. Once they move up the terrorist food chain, the red laser beam is on their forehead and they know it.

Still awaiting that better answer.

First you compare something as terrorism to a Japanese school

No, I compared the 'what we're doing is ineffective and possibly harmful so let's do more of the same' mentality of the Japanese education system with the 'what we're doing is ineffective and possibly harmful so let's do more of the same' mentality of the US military. Interesting that you failed to recognise who or what was being compared.

You know, they don't wake up one day and magically become a terrorist.

No, they don't. I'm sure there are plenty of them who are turned into terrorists when a loved one - or a whole family of loved ones - are blown up 'accidentally' by an American drone. If it happened to me, I know I'd be red-hot furious.

the red laser beam is on their forehead

Assuming that the identification process is foolproof and extrajudicial executions are A-OK (enormous, insurmountable IF, but for the sake of argument....) a 'red laser beam' would be neat and tidy and eliminate only the target. So why use missiles?

If the US authorities are so sure they are identifying the right people, and if the purpose of the strikes is to protect Americans, why not simply put the names of all these 'threats' on a list, and deny anyone on the list entry to the US?

Because that doesn't always work. I sleep better knowing they're dead and can't find a way in to my country rather than wondering if the border protection is working.

a 'red laser beam' would be neat and tidy and eliminate only the target. So why use missiles?

It's interesting that you fail to see corelation between what was written and what the actual meaning is. Definitely someone that has only gathered information from media.

I'm sure there are plenty of them who are turned into terrorists when a loved one - or a whole family of loved ones - are blown up 'accidentally' by an American drone. If it happened to me, I know I'd be red-hot furious.

You are always siding with "them." What about the lives they take? Meaningless? And if a terrorist killedyyour family and loved ones, you'd be red-hot furious, is what your saying. That's what I thought. Your stance on drone strikes is not based on what you know, but rather based on feelings. Until you seeit ffirst hand or have something hit close to home, you will never understand the "War on terrorism."

This article is about whether drones are against international law.

Its five days after my initial post, where I asked:

Is there anything legally distinct about killing people with drones? As opposed to air-strikes, or missile strikes?

No one has answered.

So, for those here who think drones are against international law, please make your case.

You are always siding with "them." What about the lives they take?

The 'them' I am 'siding' with (the 'collateral damage') take no lives. You need to brush up your reading comprehension skills.

And if a terrorist killedyyour family and loved ones, you'd be red-hot furious, is what your saying.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

As for the 'red laser beam' - it's convenient to imagine strikes taking place like they do in the movies, all clear-cut Good Guy/Bad Guy, little red light then the Bad Guy falls neatly to the ground and all is well. The ugly reality is body parts strewn over a wide area, blood and guts everywhere, and because it's a blunt-instrument missile not a little red light, the body parts don't all belong to the Bad Guys. Trying to invoke neat images of little red lights is denying reality. That's what the 'real meaning' is.

Drone strikes are assassinations by remote control. Of course assassination is against intl. law. The ironic thing is that they don't even work, because whle the US picks off a few terrorists here and there by murder, they coddle their ideological leaders and support the islamist governments around the world.

It is simply assassination for PR purposes.... not only criminal, but crazy.

Just as I figured...no solutions just one sided complaining.

It's OK, TDA; Might is Right and no one is strong enough to stop you beating your wife.

TheDevilsAssistant

" no solutions "

The solutiion to deal with jihadism would be to take on political islam head on. Stop supporting islamist governments, stop coddling islamist movements like the muslim Brotherhood, make foreign aid dependent on human rights and modernity. Stop any aid to countries that adopt Shariah, stop islamist preaching at home.

But the US (and Europe) do none of that. To the contrary. Instead the US assassinates random jihadis here and there (often killing onrelated bystanders in the process) by remote control. While at the same time coddling jihadis at home

It is not only illegal, it is asinine.

Low blow...my first wife and three children were killed by terrorists ten years ago in my country. Thanks.

So, for those here who think drones are against international law, please make your case.

@JTDanMan--There is nothing in fine print technically making the distinction between air strikes by manned and unmmanned craft, or by cruise missile from a ship or hellfire from a drone, but, we all know that if America suddenly fought and lost a war to Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen those drone strikes would be called crimes against humanity and people punished for them.

But what makes these International Law violations in Yemen and Pakistan is the sovereignty issue. In my mind the strikes clearly are sovereignty violations.

Now I ask you back: How is blowing people up in nations America is not at war with NOT a violation of those nation's sovereignty?

@ControlFreak

I am glad you recognize there is no legal distinction between using cruise missiles or drones. And the issue revolves around not the means but the legality of the strikes. It seems that many here do not understand that.

I do not know if US attacks in Afghanistan violate the terms of the U.S.–Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement signed last year.

I have not taken a stand on whether US strikes in Pakistan and Yeman violate those nation's sovereignty.

A drone apparently killed al Shabab's explosives expert in Somalia recently. So let's try to remember all the good work that the drones are doing, not just for us but for the people of Kenya and around the world.

I have not taken a stand on whether US strikes in Pakistan and Yeman violate those nation's sovereignty.

@JTDanMan--I ask you again, how could they not?

And there are other aspects to consider as well. The drone strikes are not only violating national sovereignty. They are also killing suspects with zero attempt to take them alive for trial. This is not 100 percent exclusive to the drone strikes, but pretty close.

And it seems to me that airstrikes on civilian areas are violations of international law and crimes against humanity, its just the world is turning a blind eye. But the drones have taken it to an all new level of evil and cowardice in doing it by remote control and terrorizing populations all day every day with the things overhead, which is not done with manned aircraft. Also, people are becoming targets after rather shoddy attempts at identification from the drones alone.

Then there are the secondary strikes which is basically a tactic specific to drones, and they kill firefighters and paramedics who arrive at the scene.

If Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan or Yemen were conducting drone strikes in America to get to people like those responsible for the Maywand District Killings, Robert Bales or those who raped and murdered the 14 year old girl in Mahmudiyah, we all know damned well those supporting the drone strikes elsewhere would change their tune instantly and be saying the exact same things I am.