Drone attacks in Pakistan traumatise civilians, US report claims

[hellheaven1987]

The report was done by Stanford and New York Universities, by the way.

Civilians are being "terrorised" 24 hours a day by CIA drone attacks that target mainly low-level militants in north-west Pakistan, a US report says.

Rescuers treating the casualties are also being killed and wounded by follow-up strikes, says the report by Stanford and New York Universities.

Drone attacks are thought to have killed hundreds of militants in Yemen and Afghanistan as well as Pakistan.

US President Obama has said the targets are "on a list of active terrorists".

Senior al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan.

But the scale of civilian casualties has been difficult to assess because independent media and researchers are denied access by the authorities to the tribal areas near the Afghan border.

Hours before the report was released, another drone strike hit the Mir Ali area of North Waziristan. The Pakistani Taliban said nine fighters were killed.

The interesting findings are:

- children are being taken out of school out of fear of a drone-strike or to compensate for income lost from a dead or wounded relative
- there is "significant evidence" of the practice of "double-tap" strikes in which rescuers arriving at the scene are targeted in follow-up attacks
- drones flying overhead have led to "substantial levels of fear and stress... in the civilian communities"
- as well as injury or death, the attacks cause property damage, severe economic hardship and emotional trauma for the injured and their families
- people are afraid to attend gatherings such as funerals for fear of attack

And I think it is good to conclude with this if you are too lazy to read:

One humanitarian worker - previously based in the US - compared the levels of fear in Waziristan to those in New York after the 9/11 attacks.

Source

Of course, my motivation is not criticizing whether US government did a right thing or not (you are however free to do that of course), but I do wonder whether it is time for international community to create a new set of laws to classify the military boundary of UAV and other unmanned machines, especially since it is clear now that those unmanned machines would be the future focus of military.

[I WUB PUGS]

I guess we could always carpet bomb them instead. Silver lining to every drone silhouette?

[frozenprince]

If you have a better solution to prevent insurgents crossing the border or hiding behind their families in Pakistan, please, do tell us.

[Caelius]

M'eh.....had a feeling this report would be posted by one of the usual suspects here with an agenda to pursue. Lot of people here in the Beltway have read it and shrugged their shoulders, it's findings aren't going to a change a thing.

Fact is most of those killed by drones are are mid-level insurgent commanders. Killing them keeps the Taliban's capability down, forces high leadership turnover, threatens them even in their safe havens, and occasionally the death of a subordinate during a key operation forces a higher level commander to expose themselves, allowing them to be killed. The writers of this study do not have access to the complete information to draw a proper conclusion on their important third point. The other points can be summed up as "war is suffering." If you don't want civilians to die, best not to fight.

Remember, this is a bunch of lawyers writing this. They're qualified to judge whether the drone strikes are legal (they really aren't, for whatever that's worth, but legality in war is largely a pleasant fig leaf anyway) but not whether they're effective.

Anyone know who funded/sponsored this report?

[mrmouth]

"Living Under Drones" - that's precious. They just totally reject the multiple independent polls done in the surrounding tribal areas about these strikes that show favorable support?

Again, what Pakistanis in these areas say when the sun is up as opposed to when it is down and they are in the safety of their homes, is much different.

Yes, the majority are mid-level people. The exact people who get their hands dirty.

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. Based on extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.

They are basically piggybacking off the same flawed sources as the British investigative journalism website. Going into the areas where strikes happen. These people would be sympathetic for obvious reasons. More often than not these are actually towns that are home to the entire insurgent group.

It's so mindbogglingly flawed. And the best part is this is once again a case of mental :wub: on a problem that has a solution in forcing Pakistan to finally act. If they put their time and effort into that, it would save far more lives and grief.

[Fallenempire]

Fact is most of those killed by drones are are mid-level insurgent commanders.
Anyone know who funded/sponsored this report?

Fact is most people killed by those drone strikes are civilians.

[Fluttershy]

Fact is most people killed by those drone strikes are civilians.assuming your a neocon so i suppose you don't care about facts

source please

[I WUB PUGS]

Fact is most people killed by those drone strikes are civilians.assuming your a neocon so i suppose you don't care about facts

Neocon. Haven't been neocons around for like 5 or 6 years man, last two, three Bush years killed that movement.

[Caelius]

Neocon. Haven't been neocons around for like 5 or 6 years man, last two, three Bush years killed that movement.

Shhhh!

Neocons are the big bad boogeyman now! Even though the movement is long discredited and all but dead, it still makes anti-Americans and BAFs feel good whenever they invoke the name.....

Neocon! Neocon! Run for your lives!

[Thorn777]

Neocon. Haven't been neocons around for like 5 or 6 years man, last two, three Bush years killed that movement.

The neocon era left its mark quite evidently in American society. Much is fading, but much is still very present. I say this as an 31 year old who observed the US for some time now. Ive seen the changes under Bush, and I see much still present, like that "carpet bombing" remark.

This button pushing is not manly. Crossing blades is. Try that, you kill less innocent, than this colleteral damage and atrittion from the sky killing millions pathetic apologisms. I truly despise this US...in every way.

[Slaytaninc]

Fact is most people killed by those drone strikes are civilians.assuming your a neocon so i suppose you don't care about facts

I have a question for you, and in general.

You're opposed to drone attacks. Are you opposed to the US attacking in general?

If you don't think the US should go "terrorist hunting", then any US action is bad. If you do think the US can go "terrorist hunting", if you think the US has the right to intervene, then drones are the best option.

[Poet]

I have a question for you, and in general.

You're opposed to drone attacks. Are you opposed to the US attacking in general?

If you don't think the US should go "terrorist hunting", then any US action is bad. If you do think the US can go "terrorist hunting", if you think the US has the right to intervene, then drones are the best option.

This is a violation of intl laws and UN mandate, even UN officials have put questions to legality and legitimacy of these attacks. Why Pakistan is not going in UN? It's a complicated question;

1: Pakistan Govt. won't go in UN because military and civil elite is made of American touts and wikileaks has revealed information that Army Chief and President have granted secret permission for these strikes. Ex-Prime minster reportedly told US officials that they should keep striking and Pak Govt. would keep condemning just to save her face.

2: Pakistani people never seriously made an effort to take country's control back from ruling elite, thus we have had corrupt civilian and military ruler, hence this deteriorating economy situation. Now for our expenditures we rely on US aid or we take debt from IMF, this leaves no space for us to act free of US influence.

3: US and allies is a group of intl thugs and morons. Plus they have all intl media and UN on their back. See how they actively committed state terrorism in Iraq but UN gave them mandate to keep Iraq under occupation instead of punishing them. A powerful state or group of states may act mad, may conspire against peace and go untouched but a weak state cannot do this. Right after US invasion, US initiated this process that has weakened our economy and taken lives of more than 40,000 people. They let India and Northern Alliance take control of Afghanistan against promises made with us. They let Baloch rebels have safe heaven in Afghanistan and TTP as well. Now to counter this cheating, our idiots had no better way but to cheat America in response. Now if we go to UN, this matter would go beyond US-Pak relationship ambit and UN would have lean towards them. UN would ignore their cheating and they would punish us for having Osama or Haqqanis, ignoring the fact that Haqqanis are well settled in Afghanistan and that Osama was a "mujahid" created by US/Saudi/Pak jihad against Russia. This is a intl politics game and not an easy thing to understand.

[Fallenempire]

I have a question for you, and in general.

You're opposed to drone attacks. Are you opposed to the US attacking in general?

If you don't think the US should go "terrorist hunting", then any US action is bad. If you do think the US can go "terrorist hunting", if you think the US has the right to intervene, then drones are the best option.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Pakistan.html
read it make up your own opinion.

other than that there is a part in this interview where they are talking about drone strikes and the war on terrorism and all that crap if your interested in my opinion that represent it pretty well. I dont feel like writing four or five paragraphs explaining my point. Peace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwqF5...&feature=inbox

[Heathen Hammer]

If you have a better solution to prevent insurgents crossing the border or hiding behind their families in Pakistan, please, do tell us.

Guard border with Pakistan better? Train ANA better? Leave Afghanistan and save money and resources to help your own poor and hungry instead?

What happened to the good old days when we actually arrested suspects and stored them in a Caribbean resort complex...

Human rights happened.

[Col. Tartleton]

What happened to the good old days when we actually arrested suspects and stored them in a Caribbean resort complex...

[mrmouth]

What happened to the good old days when we actually arrested suspects and stored them in a Caribbean resort complex...

Go get 'em, tiger. Pack a lunch.

[hellheaven1987]

What happened to the good old days when we actually arrested suspects and stored them in a Caribbean resort complex...

Free holiday package offers by US government was long over due to budget restriction.

[Imperial]

The report was done by Stanford and New York Universities, by the way.



The interesting findings are:



And I think it is good to conclude with this if you are too lazy to read:



Source

Of course, my motivation is not criticizing whether US government did a right thing or not (you are however free to do that of course), but I do wonder whether it is time for international community to create a new set of laws to classify the military boundary of UAV and other unmanned machines, especially since it is clear now that those unmanned machines would be the future focus of military.

I think I'd be more stressed over the fact that I live in a hostile and dangerous side of the country that is in constant warfare with the government then a couple of metal things flying overhead that has a 1:1000000000000000000000000000 chance of actually hitting me.

[hellheaven1987]

I think I'd be more stressed over the fact that I live in a hostile and dangerous side of the country that is in constant warfare with the government then a couple of metal things flying overhead that has a 1:1000000000000000000000000000 chance of actually hitting me.

You mean constant warfare against infidels of West? Or you are thinking NATO is Pakistan government?

[Adar]

I love how the introduction statement seem to imply that the attacks are unnecessary.

"Civilians are being "terrorised" 24 hours a day by CIA drone attacks that target mainly low-level militants in north-west Pakistan, a US report says."

I am just curious on how far the reporters care for "low level militants" extends. Is it okay to shoot at them when they have run out of ammo? Before they have placed an IED or perhaps only after they have actually done it? Low-level just sounds so harmless but in practice it really should be interpreted as "the guys who actually kill our soldiers".