Stanford-NYU Report: Drone Attacks Illegal, Counterproductive

trbdavies writes "In 'Living Under Drones,' investigators from Stanford and NYU Law Schools report on interviews with 130 people in Pakistan about U.S.-led drone attacks there, including 69 survivors and family members of victims. The report affirms Bureau of Investigative Journalism numbers that count '474 to 884 civilian deaths since 2004, including 176 children' while 'only about 2% of drone casualties are top militant leaders.' It also argues that the attacks violate international law and are counterproductive, stating: 'Evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the U.S. an enemy.'"

Comments

Immoral and counter-productive, yes.

[John Hasler]

"illegal", no. The aerial bombing (the bombers being unmanned is irrelevant) of Pakistan would be an act of war were it not being done with the permission of the Pakistani government (they are neither trying to shoot down the bombers nor filing official complaints with the UN). As it is being done with permission, it is legally a bilateral Pakistani and USA affair. It is, unfortunately, not a violation of USA law and evidently not a violation of Pakistani law either. Until the givernment of Pakistan tries to stop it by, at minimum, formally demanding that it stop it is not legally anyone else's business (which is not to say it is not wrong: it is).

Persecution of Christians

[Taco Cowboy]

If you really want to know how the Christian minority in Pakistan are being treated, here are some links you should explore:

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=2556

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=3659

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/vieweditorial.php?editorialid=23

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/headlinenewsd.php?hnewsid=3765

http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/pakistan/15560

All the above links are all based on what actually had happened. They are not propaganda.

Unlike the liberals in the US who lives on anti-US propaganda, the Christian minority in Pakistan have no luxury at all living in the world of propaganda.

Every single day of their lives they have to go through the gauntlet of threats and insults.

Every single day some one from their community got beaten up or killed or raped or forcibly converted into Islam.

Every single day in their lives tragedy happens.

But you do not get to read any of that in the main stream media, do you?

That is because the Western main stream media, - from New York Times to Le Monde of France, - are being controlled by the liberals who hate Christianity more than anything else.

They will not report any news on the persecution of the Christian minority in Indonesia or in Pakistan.

But if ever there is a single case of Muslim being hurt or killed, you bet on the next day those liberal controlled main-stream-media will have their BIG HEADLINE blaring "Evil Christian killing peace loving Muslims !!!"

Re:Persecution of Christians

[farble1670]

That is because the Western main stream media, - from New York Times to Le Monde of France, - are being controlled by the liberals who hate Christianity more than anything else.

sure, some people hate christians, but that's not what you're talking about. you are talking about people who don't live their lives and change the laws of the US to be in accordance with your religious beliefs.

the US was founded with freedom of religion. but that's not enough for some people. no where in the world will you find the variety of religions practiced in freedom in the US. it's not perfect. bad people do bad things, like that christian who recently killed all of the sikhs, but in general we're pretty tolerant.

however, some folks aren't happy with being able to worship in freedom and peace - aren't happy until everyone either believes what they believe, are is forced to act in accordance with it whether they believe it or not.

Re:Persecution of Christians

[DNS-and-BIND]

Nope. The position you advocate would result in Americans holding themselves higher than other nations, something that has been disallowed for some time now. Americans are not permitted to think themselves better than anyone. As a matter of fact, Americans are always worse. Why?

A pervasive argument appearing in the post-colonial paradigm is that of Moral Equivalence. In the case of Islamic terrorism the dynamics of moral equivalence can be seen among some figures of the western intelligentsia in their vociferous moral indignation at the behavior of Western nations that, they allege, led to acts of terror, and their understanding attitude towards the terrorist acts themselves (HRC). Even if they do not intentionally excuse terrorism, such writers produce the unhappy consequence of explaining Islamic terrorism in terms of Western misdeeds and faults, and of framing the debate in terms of what the West did to deserve such attacks and, therefore, reverse the moral equation. The Westâ(TM)s âoewrongsâ come to be seen as more reprehensible than the reaction (however âoeharshâ and inexcusable) by terrorists. The easy moral challenge is: âoeAre we not hypocrites, when we do the same thing?â

At some level, this is a pathology of self-criticism (MOS) â" it is all our fault, and if we were better, then we could fix everything. Meanwhile, while we demand the highest standards of ourselves, we treat the terrorists as morally challenged, who canâ(TM)t even understand the questions of intention and cannot be expected to self-criticize. We become incapable of making the distinction between victims and perpetrators, and end up blaming the victim.

Re:What % always considered us the enemy?

[Mitreya]

The pervasive attitude is, "bin Laden, a hero, was murdered, and by the very people that made him a hero."

Yep. That's the attitude. It has nothing to do with things like
"The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims."
because that's a minor detail no one would worry about.

You better come up with proofs

[Taco Cowboy]

Tea Partiers hate far more than just the current administration. They hate women's rights, they hate gay rights, they hate minority rights

You better come up with solid proof of what you said.

The term "TEA" stands for Tax Enough Already

The TEA party is about TAX - yes, TAX

It has nothing to do with hating women rights, or hating gays, or hating minority.

If you can't come up with solid proof of what you said, you are nothing but a pathetic liberal troll !

Re:Even without the drones. Pakistanis don't like

[anagama]

Obama Admin spin to protect Hillary. There was no riot at all outside the Libyan embassy. It was a planned attack -- had nothing to do with a stupid youtube video either. It's about getting revenge on people who kill you. You'd do the same thing given half a chance to a Chinese embassy if China treated us like we treat others.

Anyway, the whole lie about the embassy is "anchor and adjust" -- tell a lie to get people anchored to an idea, then when the truth comes out, people will adjust their thinking to maintain belief in the original bullshit, like "a video is all it takes for an attack -- such savages!"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/obama-officials-spin-benghazi-attack

Re:74% of Pakistanis now consider the U.S. an enem

[anagama]

Also remember that what the Obama administration means when it says "militant", is a man or a boy killed by a drone. It will revert that to civilian if it is conclusively proven after the fact the person was innocent by some mystical secret standard. In other words, a great many of the "militants" really weren't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=4&_r=2
from page 4

"It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants," the official said. "They count the corpses and they're not really sure who they are."

Re:So let's see...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no claim that this was a random survey. From the article:

Following nine months of intensive research—including two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reporting—this report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies.

These interviews provided useful information about various things, such as the "double tap" attacks on rescuers:

Another interviewee, Hayatullah Ayoub Khan, recounted a particularly harrowing incident that he said he experienced while driving between Dossali and Tal in North Waziristan.[163] He stated that a missile from a drone was fired at a car approximately three hundred meters in front of him, missing the car in front, but striking the road close enough to cause serious damage.[164] Hayatullah stopped, got out of his own car, and slowly approached the wreckage, debating whether he should help the injured and risk being the victim of a follow-up strike.[165] He stated that when he got close enough to see an arm moving inside the wrecked vehicle, someone inside yelled that he should leave immediately because another missile would likely strike.[166] He started to return to his car and a second missile hit the damaged car and killed whomever was still left inside.[167] He told us that nearby villagers waited another twenty minutes before removing the bodies, which he said included the body of a teacher from Hayatullah’s village.[168]

Crucially, the threat of the “double tap” reportedly deters not only the spontaneous humanitarian instinct of neighbors and bystanders in the immediate vicinity of strikes, but also professional humanitarian workers providing emergency medical relief to the wounded. According to a health professional familiar with North Waziristan, one humanitarian organization had a “policy to not go immediately [to a reported drone strike] because of follow up strikes. There is a six hour mandatory delay.”[169] According to the same source, therefore, it is “only the locals, the poor, [who] will pick up the bodies of loved ones.”[170]

The dissuasive effect that the “double tap” pattern of strikes has on first responders raises crucial moral and legal concerns. Not only does the practice put into question the extent to which secondary strikes comply with international humanitarian law’s basic rules of distinction, proportionality, and precautions, but it also potentially violates specific legal protections for medical and humanitarian personnel, and for the wounded.[171] As international law experts have noted, intentional strikes on first responders may constitute war crimes.[172]

and the psychological effect of living in an area targeted for aerial attacks:

One of the few accounts of living under drones ever published in the US came from a former New York Times journalist who was kidnapped by the Taliban for months in FATA.[198] In his account, David Rohde described both the fear the drones inspired among his captors, as well as among ordinary civilians: “The drones were terrifying. From the ground, it is impossible to determine who or what they are tracking as they circle overhead. The buzz of a distant propeller is a constant reminder of imminent death.”[199] Describing the experience of living under drones as ‘hell on earth’, Rohde explained that even in the areas where strikes were less frequent, the people living there still feared for their lives.[200]

Community members, mental health professionals, and journalists interviewed for this report described how the constant presence of US drones overhead leads to substantial levels of fear and stress in the civilian communities below.[201] One man described the reaction to the sound of the drones as “a wave of terror”

Re:So let's see...

[Beetle B.]

Of the 176,745,364 people in Pakistan (according to World Bank), they chose 130 and managed to get more than half who were related to the "474 to 884" people who've died.

Not at all sure what your point is. I haven't read the report, but your comment is without merit.

They targeted a lot of people who were relatives of the deceased. They didn't randomly sample the country and then happen to get over 65 who were related to the deceased.

And the problem with that is...?