Using drones: principles, tactics and results (amended title)

[davidbfpo]

I missed this NYT article and found it viahttp://legalift.wordpress.com/ .

When military investigators looked into an attack by American helicopters last February that left 23 Afghan civilians dead, they found that the operator of a Predator drone had failed to pass along crucial information about the makeup of a gathering crowd of villagers.

But Air Force and Army officials now say there was also an underlying cause for that mistake: information overload.

Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/te...0Deadly&st=cse

[davidbfpo]

Again from WaPo:

reports that, according to independent estimates, few high-value targets are being hit successfully by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, despite a sharp increase in strikes last year. The report says 118 drone strikes in 2010 killed an estimated 581 militants, only two of whom appeared on a list of most-wanted terrorists. CLS Fellow Peter Bergen is cited in the report as suggesting that “data on the strikes indicate that 94 percent of those killed are lower-level militants".

Link:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

One does wonder if the ISI-provided intelligence, pre-Raymond Davis, which has previously been reported as the main source for targeting, has been accurate and if the motives have been clear.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to CLS e-briefing to a report in The Guardian:

Britain’s Ministry of Defence commissioned an in-house study last month examining the ethics of drones, according to the Guardian, and is urging policymakers to consider norms and rules that would govern the use of the rapidly developing technology and robotic warfare. According to the Guardian, the report states that “the recent extensive use of unmanned aircraft over Pakistan and Yemen may already herald a new era,” and that “every time a mistake is made,” insurgents are able to cast themselves “in the role of underdog and the west as a cowardly bully that is unwilling to risk his own troops, but is happy to kill remotely.” The report continues that the authors hope policymakers will engage in a conversation about the implications of remote warfare, including whether individuals operating drones are considered combatants.

Link to article:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...kes-mod-ethics

There is a superb commentary on the issues involved, which I hesitate to select a quote from on Leah Farrell's blog:http://allthingscounterterrorism.com...-using-drones/

[jmm99]

Here's one for you, David - since it apparently originates in the UK.

Reprieve’s director, Clive Stafford-Smith, is well-known to us from his role in a number of Gitmo cases. Those cases, from the detainees' standpoint, seem to have largely run out of gas in the DC Circuit. Thus, my British "colleague" has moved to a new theater of Lawfare operations.

From the Miami Herald, Group threatens legal trouble for US over drones:

.....
"There are endless ways in which the courts in Britain, the courts in America, the international courts and Pakistani courts can get involved," director Clive Stafford-Smith told journalists in London. "It's going to be the next 'Guantanamo Bay' issue."
.....

Stafford-Smith said he was exploring options ranging from civil litigation to criminal prosecution but gave few details. Reprieve's legal director, Cori Crider, said the group might try to pursue individual drone operators in the United States or file suit against the British government if it could show that U.K. intelligence had been used to help target a drone strike.

But Crider acknowledged that U.S. rules which shield government officials from lawsuits would be a formidable obstacle.
.....

Stafford-Smith seemed to acknowledge that how any prospective lawsuit played in the media could be more important than a lawsuit in court.

"The crucial court here is the court of public opinion," he said.

And, so it (the court of public opinion) is.

Regards

Mike

[motorfirebox]

"It's going to be the next 'Guantanamo Bay' issue."

So it will be the subject of great outcry that falls largely silent when those who cry about it the most refuse to have anything to do with the realities of fixing it?

Not that I'm bitter or anything...

[davidbfpo]

Added as a resource for the casualties caused by drone attacks:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...ondVersion.pdf

A very short introduction:

In Pakistan, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (‘drones’) has preceded and succeeded the death of Osama bin Laden. Drones’ use, in particular by the US within Pakistan, is surrounded by debate over their dubious legality. All the while, civilian and militant deaths continue on. Jacob Beswick, Project Officer for ORG’s Recording Casualties in Armed Conflict (RCAC) programme, has written a Working Paper comparing the methodologies and findings of the organisations dedicated to reporting on casualties caused by drones within Pakistan. The paper highlights and discusses why gaps in data exist and what can be done to address them.

From:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.u...ict_casualties

[davidbfpo]

Moderator's Note

I plan to amend the thread's title from 'The drone paradox' to 'Using drones: principles, tactics and results'. This will reflect the discussion to date better.

[AdamG]

Interesting twist - the drone as a round of munitions (like a LAW).

The backpack-size "Switchblade" drone and its launch tube give individual soldiers a new level of precise control over an explosive weapon. Rather than calling in supporting artillery fire or airstrikes, soldiers can simply launch the Switchblade from out of sight, confirm a target on a live video feed from the drone, and then command the robotic device to arm itself and fly into the target at high speed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44412133.../#.Tmt-qnODo39