
U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die in Drone Strikes - william_stranix
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/world/asia/drone-strikes-reveal-uncomfortable-truth-us-is-often-unsure-about-who-will-die.html?_r=0
======
skywhopper
I'm mostly depressed that the President only apologizes to the families and
promises an investigation when it's American and Italian innocents who were
killed. Hundreds of innocent Pakistanis, Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis, and Somalis
have been killed by US drones. And only the worst of those cases has even a
mention been made of any review of policy or procedure.

In summary: :(

~~~
chimeracoder
Just to drive home the point further, if it's a US citizen who gets killed,
but that US citizen has an Arab name, no apology is apparently needed[0].

Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a 16-year-old American boy, eating dinner at a
restaurant in Yemen while searching for his father. Nobody denies that he was
completely innocent, and even the US government simply says he was "in the
wrong place at the wrong time"[1].

You'll also notice that the media oftentimes use the euphemism "US-born" to
refer to people like al-Awlaki and his father, but refer to Weinstein as
American.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-
Awlaki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki)

[1] We can also question why that place was "the wrong place", since (A) we're
not at war with Yemen, and (B) the target of the drone strikes (his father)
was also a US citizen who had never been convicted of any crime, but that's a
separate matter, since it's not analogous to this incident.

~~~
tim333
>if it's a US citizen who gets killed, but that US citizen has an Arab name,
no apology is apparently needed

It helps if they are the son of a "senior talent-recruiter and motivator who
was involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group
al-Qaeda"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-
Awlaki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki)

------
hackercurious
This reminds me of the, TOM THE DANCING BUG: "Hello! You've Been Targeted For
a Drone Assassination!" cartoon.

[http://boingboing.net/2012/03/14/tom-the-dancing-bug-
hello.h...](http://boingboing.net/2012/03/14/tom-the-dancing-bug-hello.html)

------
NateDad
Why do people single out drones? It's not like it would be different if there
were a pilot in the thing. I guess it's just good old FUD.

~~~
lostcolony
Because they're concerned that the lack of a pilot, and thus, pilot risk,
means the US is more willing to order attacks, since there is no political
risk to themselves should something be shot down?

Because they're concerned with the change in warfare this heralds, that we're
moving to using technologies that explicitly and autonomously target civilian
areas, and deciding who 'enemy combatants' are based on presidential mandate,
rather than military engagements, thus setting a terrible precedent for future
wars (i.e., if we ever were to find ourselves at war with another country, or
even not at war, just that one of our citizens did something against a
country, and that country decided to use drones to attack civilian sites,
claiming they were attacking enemy combatants, what recourse would we have on
the international stage)?

Because they're concerned not so much with drones, but with the precedent set
by presidentially ordered assassination, and through means known to cause
collateral damage (unlike most alleged assassination attempts prior)?

Because the entire policy has led to intense fear in the areas we're flying
drones over; not only are we now inspiring terror in our attempt to find and
kill terrorists (...), but we're hurting our chances at winning over 'hearts
and minds' and such, and likely raising up a generation in these countries
that hates and fears us.

~~~
NateDad
They're not autonomous. They're piloted by a person. There's very little
difference between looking at the screen in the cockpit to know when to drop
the bomb, and looking at the screen in the control room.

~~~
lostcolony
Sorry, I should have been clearer. Yes, it is not truly autonomous, but the
mindset of many of those interviewed in the areas we are conducting attacks is
basically "death can come down from on high at any moment from clear blue
skies". They're not viewing it as "soldiers sometimes come into our village
and shoot at suspected terrorists and there are sometimes civilian
casualties".

And the tendency is to keep moving to that; even now it's only 'soldier vs
civilian' by technicality; as soon as we can replace the soldier at the
viewscreen with an algorithm, we likely will.

------
cyphunk
It seems strange to someone who is not living in the US or Israel how people
can just say as this author does "By most accounts, hundreds of dangerous
militants have, indeed, been killed by drones, including some high-ranking
Qaeda figures."

It's as though the only thing that bothers the majority is that a terrorist
didn't die but someone else. There is a clear divide from the rest of the
world which still finds it strange to kill someone without declaring war or
having a clear reason. And from the tone of this article i wonder if that
divide isn't a lot further than i thought.

The idea of killing someone just because we think they are a threat... sounds
like a sci-fi novel to the rest of us.

~~~
Rawrshack
>The idea of killing someone just because we think they are a threat... sounds
like a sci-fi novel to the rest of us.

Not really a sci-fi novel. We've had all this before in a time and place
called the Third Reich. Different methods, different Undesirables, same
propaganda, same evil mass murdering government military apparatus.

------
ck2
Of course they don't know, there isn't even a declared war with congressional
debate.

And just like the NSA scandals, the TSA nonense, etc, etc, the public will
yawn and then forget about it a week later.

------
wehadfun
I cant criticize U.S. military policy while I sit in a temperature controlled
office and write CRUD software.

The only thing I can criticize is the technology that makes it so hard for
these guys to do their jobs. If Youtube can deliver 4K cat videos then the
military with its $500 Billion per year budget should be able to deliver half
decent videos.

------
ape4
There was hundreds of hours of surveillance before this strike. But no sign of
the hostages. Guess they didn't let them outside.

------
anonymousDan
In other news, water is wet...

------
lostit2xx
Terrorists are unsure who will die when they set off bombs in shopping centers
and street cafes.

~~~
skywhopper
I like to think my government has higher moral values than terrorists.

------
1971genocide
I wonder what happens when a non-US entity flies a plane to kill US citiz ..

At least OBL had a valid reason ( for ppl who don't know this - he did it as a
revenge to what israel was doing in Lebanon ). Killing civilians without
reason is genocide and history will judge US appropriately.

~~~
happyscrappy
While it is tempting to hope that at some point the US will disengage and let
the world fend for itself it is not in the interest of anyone except ISIS,
Russia and possibly China. I would personally love to see Putin haranguing
Europe.

~~~
dalke
There is no reason to go from one extreme - the 'cops of the word' to quote
Ochs - to extreme isolationism on the other. There are many stages in between.

FWIW, I believe many residents of Okinawa Prefecture would be interested in
having US military off of their island, should the US withdraw. Should we do
that, I suspect Japan would quickly develop nuclear weapons.

I also strongly believe many in Latin America would prefer a strict
isolationist policy by the US. Many remember how the US supported right-wing
authoritarian regimes in the 1970s and 1980s, don't want the US meddling in
their country, and have little to fear from Eurasian threats.

~~~
happyscrappy
No it won't happen. Europe being America's hand puppet is the cornerstone of
US power.

~~~
dalke
You said it wasn't in the interest of anyone, other than ISIS, Russia, and
China, for the US to withdraw.

I pointed out some other examples of people who probably would like the US out
of the international stage.

Your reply here makes it sound either like you didn't understand your original
point - the hope that the US might withdraw - or that you believe the only
people who are relevant are the US and those the US considers to be its
opposition.

I am certain there are people in Bolivia who would like the US to stop
protecting US business interests in that country, and who will not be
negatively affected by possible growth in Russian, Chinese, or ISIS power
should the US become the isolationist state you says was "tempting to hope".

