"The Drone Papers"

[Duc'-guy25]

Has anyone read through these articles yet? Just started browsing through them. The gist of the leak seems to be along the lines of we act on unreliable intel for drone strikes, so honestly I don't find them to be that shocking since we, the public, already seem to have a decent understanding on how drones are being employed in ISR and strike missions. I don't think this will end up being a Snowden level news circus, but still interesting read on the writer's interpretation of the study. Thoughts?

https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/

 

[Flash]

Has anyone read through these articles yet? Just started browsing through them. The gist of the leak seems to be along the lines of we act on unreliable intel for drone strikes, so honestly I don't find them to be that shocking since we, the public, already seem to have a decent understanding on how drones are being employed in ISR and strike missions. I don't think this will end up being a Snowden level news circus, but still interesting read on the writer's interpretation of the study. Thoughts?

A leaker and a publication with an agenda, of course that is how the articles will come across. The tone is set by the second sentence, giving the targets killed way too much importance by using the term assassination. Our enemies recognize no borders and we finally leveled that playing field after 9/11 and have maintained this very effective policy through two very different administrations. We and the world at large are much safer for it.

 

[picklesuit]

A leaker and a publication with and agenda, of course that is who the articles will come across. The tone is set by the second sentence, giving the targets killed way too much importance by using the term assassination. Our enemies recognize no borders and we finally leveled that playing field after 9/11 and have maintained this very effective policy through two very different administrations. We and the world at large are much safer for it.

I find myself in complete agreement with Flash.

The end is very fucking nigh...

 

[jmcquate]

That article was funny....thanks for the laughs......I needed that, long day at work.

 

[nittany03]

Thoughts?

Yeah. That between this, Manning, and Snowden, that the amount of people who treat a security clearance like a fucking joke flat-out pisses me off. Those are my thoughts.

 

[zippy]

The current political environment is anti-detainee/ source interrogation. It's more convenient to terminate the threat directly with relatively low collateral damage than it is to capture them and attempt years of rendition interrogations to gain useful information. It's much less of a political liability to use drones in the fashion they've been used.

It's pretty telling that the current administration, which is so anti-Bush era policies actually chose to expand the drone programs instead of curtailing their use.

The person responsible for the leak of this information should be pursued, as should all others who take similar action, to the maximum extent the law allows.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Also, most of the data on drone strikes (and the resultant damage/deaths) comes from interviewing locals who were at the scene.

Ever wondered....a Kashmiri goat farmer sees his neighbor's house blow up, how the fuck does he know it was a Pred strike?

 

[zippy]

Funny how drone strikes seem to always take place at "weddings".

 

[DesertRooster]

Also, most of the data on drone strikes (and the resultant damage/deaths) comes from interviewing locals who were at the scene.

Ever wondered....a Kashmiri goat farmer sees his neighbor's house blow up, how the fuck does he know it was a Pred strike?

"Yes Mr. Reporter I swear that my facts are correct, just take it from a goat farmer in the middle of a war zone."

 

[IRfly]

Also, most of the data on drone strikes (and the resultant damage/deaths) comes from interviewing locals who were at the scene.

Ever wondered....a Kashmiri goat farmer sees his neighbor's house blow up, how the fuck does he know it was a Pred strike?

Er...Not really related to the info released, but you do know that U.S. drones don't (as far as I know) have cloaking devices. People living under their orbits can see and hear them, and when something blows up... I know, I know, could just be pure coincidence.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Er...Not really related to the info released, but you do know that U.S. drones don't (as far as I know) have cloaking devices. People living under their orbits can see and hear them, and when something blows up... I know, I know, could just be pure coincidence.

Um....no, not really. I'll leave it at that here on NIPRAirWarriors

 

[Flash]

The current political environment is anti-detainee/ source interrogation. It's more convenient to terminate the threat directly with relatively low collateral damage than it is to capture them and attempt years of rendition interrogations to gain useful information. It's much less of a political liability to use drones in the fashion they've been used.

Actually we have done some pretty high profile snatch and grab operations with the current administration when it was feasible and valuable enough. One notable operation that comes to mind is the capture last year of Ahmed Abu Khattala in Libya, a supposed mastermind of the attack on the Benghazi consulate.

It's pretty telling that the current administration, which is so anti-Bush era policies actually chose to expand the drone programs instead of curtailing their use.

The big difference in the policy is how we treat terrorists we have captured, prosecuting them now. But yes, the use of drones to kill many of them helps solve that sometimes sticky issue.

 

[Duc'-guy25]

I think one of the interesting things is how the author and "the source" (read traitor) view imminent threat. From my reading it seems their definition is the bad guy has to pretty much already have the bomb strapped to his chest and screaming jihad in the middle of Times Square... The argument of of signals intelligence is insufficient evidence for a strike mission ordered down from the top is ludicrous to me. If Imabadguy over in Somolia or Yemen is talking on a cell phone or exchanging emails with his comrades about how they can load up a truck with C4 and fertilizer and start carrying out coordinated or uncoordinated attacks on our military or civilian assets and infrastructures, seems like some solid evidence to throw a Hellfire through their window.

Edit: Also this, to me, is one of the keys to preventing 9/11 scale attacks. While A, B, and C are still coming up with a game plan for their attacks, we can eliminate the threat before they can even bring their assets to the states. I think its generally known and accepted by the American public that drone strikes have collateral damage. I not saying this is a good thing, I view human life to be the most precious thing on this planet, but I think its become accepted as a necessary price to defend the free world. This is a war we're fighting, and unfortunately there will be collateral losses. Maybe in some point in the future our technology will be able to avoid it, but at this point the alternative is putting American boots on the ground in a borderless fight with vague objectives on a scale the the public has essentially deemed unacceptable after Iraq and still Afghanistan.

 

[Flash]

I actually read a few of the articles and was disappointed not just with the subject but how many holes the author left in the story. In particular the one focused on Bilal el-Berjawi, the former British citizen killed by a drone strike. While the author points out that the terrorist moved back and forth between London and Somalia with the suggestion that someone should have arrested him while he was in the UK there was no real timeline backing it up leaving the question as to when the UK and the U.S. found out he was a terrorist, before or after he went to Somalia for good? That is a pretty big hole. Also, I find it amusing it is mentioned only at the end that he was a member of Al-Qaeda and was memorialized by them. Great, we got the target right that time!

Another thing that is obvious is that the leaker (not whistleblower) has only a fraction of the information on the drone issue and all of that is from briefs and little personal exposure to the program.

There are quite a few more holes but it would be a waste of my time to go over them all.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Part of the problem is that in terms of the law of armed conflict, terrorists are still legal grey area. Criminals? Combatants? Not really either yet somehow both. Stateless actors aren't a category of the Geneva Conventions, really. And where international law does recognize stateless actors, it's usually in terms of piracy. If we treat them as criminals, then the legal ability to target them gets really hazy. If we treat terrorists as legitimate combatants and POWs, then the standard for trying them for criminal actions (i.e., terrorist attacks on civilians) becomes really high.

Some people who are spending all their time caterwauling about 'war crimes' haven't bothered to do the most cursory reading on the subject; or if they have, they're ignoring anything that doesn't fit their narrative.

Advocating that terrorists are criminal suspects and should be treated as such ignores the reality that they're armed members of organizations who have declared war on several state entities. Capture them if possible, accept their surrender if they surrender, otherwise they're legitimate targets. Enemy leadership is always a legitimate target. Every effort should be made to avoid collateral damage, innocents should never be deliberately targeted, etc.