4 ms·

Living Under Drones

66 points by mgunes 12y ago

lucb1e 12y ago
This sounds like it comes straight from a movie. The Hunger Games, book 3 (no spoiler) mentions a bomb that goes off twice: once to kill the people, a second time to kill the people that have come to the aid of those injured. Now the video mentions doctors won't go near a place where a drone struck because drones do the same.
- lotharbot 12y ago
  > "a second time to kill the people that have come to the aid of those injured" This is a fairly old tactic. For example, the Columbine school shooting (15 years ago) involved several (badly wired) bombs that were intended to go off in crowds of survivors and rescue workers. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2...
  - lucb1e 12y ago
    Yeah well commenting this I realized that it sounded too simple to be new, but it really did remind me of the book where it (spoiler for the hunger games now) did disgust me for killing one of the main characters who was utterly and completely innocent (and working as a doctor).
  - crpatino 12y ago
    Columbine shooting was an act of criminals, so you can expect anything is fair game. I wonder what the Geneva Convention has to say about Nation States relying on the same shady tactics.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > I wonder what the Geneva Convention has to say about Nation States relying on the same shady tactics. The Geneva Conventions specifically require belligerents to ensure that their combatants are distinctively uniformed, carry weapons openly, not to use civilians as human shields, not to engage in perfidy, and to be under the command of a responsible officer. The Taliban only generally fall under one of those (command and control). But even assuming you extend Geneva Convention rights unilaterally since we are "better than them", as long as the attack (first or second) is directed against a military target (i.e. actual Taliban troops coming into to retrieve the bodies of their fallen and wounded), has military value, and does not cause harm to civilians out of proportion to the military value to be gained, then it would be just fine under not only Geneva, but the international law of war (customary and otherwise). I mean, you're referring to the same Geneva Conventions that governed U.S. conduct in Vietnam for crying out loud, Conventions explicitly tailored to the idea of people killing people, so how sunny and cheery did you think the Geneva Conventions are?
      - crpatino 12y ago
        I am aware that warfare implies deadly violence by definition. But civilized warfare should bound and focus that violence towards the accomplishment of rational objectives while preserving a minimum of human rights. I was under the impression that, under Geneva Conventions, non-combatant, medical units should not be the subject of disproportionate enemy "attention", in spite of the obvious greater military value of nullifying a multiplication factor for the enemy (each doctor can treat and potentially send back to the front a great number of combatant units that would otherwise result in casualties). I am not talking about an operation assuming any risks in order to spare enemy doctors, but if the whole point of the operation is to take down the doctors in the first place, I'd call that shady. It is equivalent to gunning down unarmed civilian peasants in order to deny food to the enemy's forces. I do not think that was allowed in Geneva Conventions either, though I am well aware that US people has an incredible and almost infinite capacity to look the other side when their forces engage in that kind of issues.
        mpyne 12y ago
        > I am not talking about an operation assuming any risks in order to spare enemy doctors, but if the whole point of the operation is to take down the doctors in the first place, I'd call that shady. Targeting doctors would be flat out illegal, if marked as doctors. But recovering wounded (which is what's being described here) is not a job performed by doctors or medics in these specific cases. Even for U.S. forces, the initial extraction of wounded soldiers is almost always performed by other soldiers on the battlefield so that the the medic (normally only one) can work in a somewhat safer spot while they stabilize the casualty for MEDEVAC. If there are cases where a second shot is launched without militarily actionable intelligence that reasonably indicates the follow-up shot is also against military targets (i.e. not doctors, chaplains, civilians, etc.) then that would be a crime too. I'm not trying to say second shots are always permissible just because there have been times when Taliban have committed perfidy, you'd still need good intel each and every single time that tactic is used for it to be legal. But what I am saying is that often the story you read about actions in war are completely one-sided to make you believe that people are really going around doing things "equivalent to gunning down unarmed civilian peasants in order to deny food".
  - mpyne 12y ago
    And the tactic in this case is in response to what coalition troops learned on the battlefields of Afghanistan, namely that the Taliban recover their own dead and wounded after drone attacks, they don't let ANP, ANA, or locals interfere and possibly capture their wounded leaders alive. Whoever is firing the second shot would still need intelligence that the rescue party is a valid military target though. Unfortunately Gen. Sherman's quote about war is just as applicable in 2014 as it was after the American Civil War.
    - _broody 12y ago
      Forget about the rescue party, there isn't even ever bulletproof intelligence to justify the first drone strike, due to the way targets are acquired. This is well documented, and a serious source of controversy. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-ns... Doubling down on the carnage by killing medics/family/bystanders who hurry to the rescue of the victims whenever the CIA makes a mistake is just sick, sick, sick.
- guelo 12y ago
  It is also a war crime. Someone at the CIA, Pentagon or White House should be in jail.
- sean-duffy 12y ago
  Indeed this is a breach of a Geneva Convention, "Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and establishments, as well as chaplains attached to the armed forces, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances."[1] [1] http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570030?OpenDocument http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570030?Ope...
  - mpyne 12y ago
    Such medical and chaplain personnel are required to be marked (which explains all the markings on TV shows such as M.A.S.H.). Otherwise how can a military operation avoid accidentally targeting them? If it's true that distinctively marked medical personnel were deliberately targeted then you're right that it would be a breach of the law of war.
alexeisadeski3 12y ago
I just don't get the controversy. Anything which is permissible for a piloted bomber to destroy is surely okay for a drone to destroy as well, yes? Why the focus on drones per se? Yes, civilian deaths are bad. Yes, war is bad. Yes, perhaps the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan should be ended tomorrow. So why don't we discuss those? Drones seem utterly irrelevant: 1. Do drones cause more civilian casualties than traditional air strikes? If anything it seems that they inflict fewer. Thus focussing on this aspect actually hurts their case. 2. Do drones terrorize civilians more than a traditional infantry occupation, such as that prosecuted by the US in Iraq? I honestly have no idea, but the answer doesn't seem obvious. 3. Do drones make the US less safe than a traditional infantry based occupation? Again, I've got no idea. 4. This point is silly. In war you needn't get clearance before killing one's enemies - attempting to do so constitutes an increase in respect for human life.
- gw 12y ago
  Read the summary, and you'll find it is not condemning the specific technology, but rather the way it's being used. The website is named after drones because they happen to be the warfare tactic du jour. If instead we were lobbing bombs from howitzers, it would make perfect sense to title the website accordingly.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >1. Do drones cause more civilian casualties than traditional air strikes? Yes, since drones are used IN ADDITION to traditional air strikes, and for different kind of attacks. If anything, with drones getting cheaper, smaller plus not needing pilots and not having any casualties on the operating side, etc, they will also be used more than "traditional air strikes" which are much more difficult to approve and costlier. Technological changes are enablers and multipliers -- they change what we can do and how often we can do it. >2. Do drones terrorize civilians more than a traditional infantry occupation, such as that prosecuted by the US in Iraq? Yes, since suddenly you have essentially small planes taking over the area and killing people, especially when they can be used to occupy and have almost zero casualties from the occupying site. >4. This point is silly. In war you needn't get clearance before killing one's enemies - attempting to do so constitutes an increase in respect for human life. There's also the fact that those are not even used in a properly declared war, and are even used against sovereign countries.
gw 12y ago
Between this and the Salon SWAT story from earlier today, it's hard to not be completely ashamed at the depravity that Americans like myself are actively financing with our taxes. It's telling that the best data we have on these innocent deaths comes from a non-U.S. organization (Bureau of Investigative Journalism).
- ekianjo 12y ago
  I've always thought that one of the best way to address those issues would be to have a simple tax sheet to decide where your tax money goes - one of the best ways to vote with your money. Want to support drones programs ? Tick the box. If you don't, while you can't stop the program by yourself, at least you are not financing it.
  - gw 12y ago
    This would essentially be voluntary taxation, which I certainly support but is not something any legislature would ever willingly pass.
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      How to get there is certainly a problem in itself, but if more people start talking about it, eventually it will gain momentum. Note that I am not for a 100% voluntary taxation policy, I don't mind having a "predefined base" + optional taxation kind of system.
      - gw 12y ago
        If it isn't voluntary, the money will eventually find its way there. It's a fungible commodity, and as Congress has often demonstrated, earmarking it for specific uses is notoriously subjective.
        ekianjo 12y ago
        Well swapping funds around has limits - if you clearly spend the money planned for road improvements or welfare for other uses like war purposes, a simple audit of spending will be able to highlight the misuse - and I'd wage we would need an extremely severe judicial system to punish those involved with the misuse of public money.
coin 12y ago
Is there any good reason to disable mobile zoom on this website?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
memoirmasters 12y ago
Innocent children haunted, crying all the time... what a blood-thirsty, mad government to conduct such evil.
Yardlink 12y ago
I'm constantly bewildered by how Americans keep complaining about the government they elect. I live in a country without democracy so you can understand people complaining, but not in America. Just stop voting for the same parties that keep pissing you off! During his first election campaign, Obama publicly promised to do drone strikes in Pakistan. It's not a surprise that it ended up happening.
- adamc 12y ago
  I did. It doesn't really help unless large numbers of people do that. Don't take HN or any message board as being a representative sample.

66 points by mgunes 12y ago

This sounds like it comes straight from a movie. The Hunger Games, book 3 (no spoiler) mentions a bomb that goes off twice: once to kill the people, a second time to kill the people that have come to the aid of those injured. Now the video mentions doctors won't go near a place where a drone struck because drones do the same.

lotharbot 12y ago
> "a second time to kill the people that have come to the aid of those injured" This is a fairly old tactic. For example, the Columbine school shooting (15 years ago) involved several (badly wired) bombs that were intended to go off in crowds of survivors and rescue workers. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2...
- lucb1e 12y ago
  Yeah well commenting this I realized that it sounded too simple to be new, but it really did remind me of the book where it (spoiler for the hunger games now) did disgust me for killing one of the main characters who was utterly and completely innocent (and working as a doctor).
- crpatino 12y ago
  Columbine shooting was an act of criminals, so you can expect anything is fair game. I wonder what the Geneva Convention has to say about Nation States relying on the same shady tactics.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > I wonder what the Geneva Convention has to say about Nation States relying on the same shady tactics. The Geneva Conventions specifically require belligerents to ensure that their combatants are distinctively uniformed, carry weapons openly, not to use civilians as human shields, not to engage in perfidy, and to be under the command of a responsible officer. The Taliban only generally fall under one of those (command and control). But even assuming you extend Geneva Convention rights unilaterally since we are "better than them", as long as the attack (first or second) is directed against a military target (i.e. actual Taliban troops coming into to retrieve the bodies of their fallen and wounded), has military value, and does not cause harm to civilians out of proportion to the military value to be gained, then it would be just fine under not only Geneva, but the international law of war (customary and otherwise). I mean, you're referring to the same Geneva Conventions that governed U.S. conduct in Vietnam for crying out loud, Conventions explicitly tailored to the idea of people killing people, so how sunny and cheery did you think the Geneva Conventions are?
    - crpatino 12y ago
      I am aware that warfare implies deadly violence by definition. But civilized warfare should bound and focus that violence towards the accomplishment of rational objectives while preserving a minimum of human rights. I was under the impression that, under Geneva Conventions, non-combatant, medical units should not be the subject of disproportionate enemy "attention", in spite of the obvious greater military value of nullifying a multiplication factor for the enemy (each doctor can treat and potentially send back to the front a great number of combatant units that would otherwise result in casualties). I am not talking about an operation assuming any risks in order to spare enemy doctors, but if the whole point of the operation is to take down the doctors in the first place, I'd call that shady. It is equivalent to gunning down unarmed civilian peasants in order to deny food to the enemy's forces. I do not think that was allowed in Geneva Conventions either, though I am well aware that US people has an incredible and almost infinite capacity to look the other side when their forces engage in that kind of issues.
      - mpyne 12y ago
        > I am not talking about an operation assuming any risks in order to spare enemy doctors, but if the whole point of the operation is to take down the doctors in the first place, I'd call that shady. Targeting doctors would be flat out illegal, if marked as doctors. But recovering wounded (which is what's being described here) is not a job performed by doctors or medics in these specific cases. Even for U.S. forces, the initial extraction of wounded soldiers is almost always performed by other soldiers on the battlefield so that the the medic (normally only one) can work in a somewhat safer spot while they stabilize the casualty for MEDEVAC. If there are cases where a second shot is launched without militarily actionable intelligence that reasonably indicates the follow-up shot is also against military targets (i.e. not doctors, chaplains, civilians, etc.) then that would be a crime too. I'm not trying to say second shots are always permissible just because there have been times when Taliban have committed perfidy, you'd still need good intel each and every single time that tactic is used for it to be legal. But what I am saying is that often the story you read about actions in war are completely one-sided to make you believe that people are really going around doing things "equivalent to gunning down unarmed civilian peasants in order to deny food".
- mpyne 12y ago
  And the tactic in this case is in response to what coalition troops learned on the battlefields of Afghanistan, namely that the Taliban recover their own dead and wounded after drone attacks, they don't let ANP, ANA, or locals interfere and possibly capture their wounded leaders alive. Whoever is firing the second shot would still need intelligence that the rescue party is a valid military target though. Unfortunately Gen. Sherman's quote about war is just as applicable in 2014 as it was after the American Civil War.
  - _broody 12y ago
    Forget about the rescue party, there isn't even ever bulletproof intelligence to justify the first drone strike, due to the way targets are acquired. This is well documented, and a serious source of controversy. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-ns... Doubling down on the carnage by killing medics/family/bystanders who hurry to the rescue of the victims whenever the CIA makes a mistake is just sick, sick, sick.
guelo 12y ago
It is also a war crime. Someone at the CIA, Pentagon or White House should be in jail.
sean-duffy 12y ago
Indeed this is a breach of a Geneva Convention, "Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the search for, or the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded or sick, or in the prevention of disease, staff exclusively engaged in the administration of medical units and establishments, as well as chaplains attached to the armed forces, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances."[1] [1] http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570030?OpenDocument http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570030?Ope...
- mpyne 12y ago
  Such medical and chaplain personnel are required to be marked (which explains all the markings on TV shows such as M.A.S.H.). Otherwise how can a military operation avoid accidentally targeting them? If it's true that distinctively marked medical personnel were deliberately targeted then you're right that it would be a breach of the law of war.

alexeisadeski3 12y ago

I just don't get the controversy. Anything which is permissible for a piloted bomber to destroy is surely okay for a drone to destroy as well, yes? Why the focus on drones per se? Yes, civilian deaths are bad. Yes, war is bad. Yes, perhaps the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan should be ended tomorrow. So why don't we discuss those? Drones seem utterly irrelevant: 1. Do drones cause more civilian casualties than traditional air strikes? If anything it seems that they inflict fewer. Thus focussing on this aspect actually hurts their case. 2. Do drones terrorize civilians more than a traditional infantry occupation, such as that prosecuted by the US in Iraq? I honestly have no idea, but the answer doesn't seem obvious. 3. Do drones make the US less safe than a traditional infantry based occupation? Again, I've got no idea. 4. This point is silly. In war you needn't get clearance before killing one's enemies - attempting to do so constitutes an increase in respect for human life.

gw 12y ago
Read the summary, and you'll find it is not condemning the specific technology, but rather the way it's being used. The website is named after drones because they happen to be the warfare tactic du jour. If instead we were lobbing bombs from howitzers, it would make perfect sense to title the website accordingly.
coldtea 12y ago
>1. Do drones cause more civilian casualties than traditional air strikes? Yes, since drones are used IN ADDITION to traditional air strikes, and for different kind of attacks. If anything, with drones getting cheaper, smaller plus not needing pilots and not having any casualties on the operating side, etc, they will also be used more than "traditional air strikes" which are much more difficult to approve and costlier. Technological changes are enablers and multipliers -- they change what we can do and how often we can do it. >2. Do drones terrorize civilians more than a traditional infantry occupation, such as that prosecuted by the US in Iraq? Yes, since suddenly you have essentially small planes taking over the area and killing people, especially when they can be used to occupy and have almost zero casualties from the occupying site. >4. This point is silly. In war you needn't get clearance before killing one's enemies - attempting to do so constitutes an increase in respect for human life. There's also the fact that those are not even used in a properly declared war, and are even used against sovereign countries.

gw 12y ago

Between this and the Salon SWAT story from earlier today, it's hard to not be completely ashamed at the depravity that Americans like myself are actively financing with our taxes. It's telling that the best data we have on these innocent deaths comes from a non-U.S. organization (Bureau of Investigative Journalism).

ekianjo 12y ago
I've always thought that one of the best way to address those issues would be to have a simple tax sheet to decide where your tax money goes - one of the best ways to vote with your money. Want to support drones programs ? Tick the box. If you don't, while you can't stop the program by yourself, at least you are not financing it.
- gw 12y ago
  This would essentially be voluntary taxation, which I certainly support but is not something any legislature would ever willingly pass.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    How to get there is certainly a problem in itself, but if more people start talking about it, eventually it will gain momentum. Note that I am not for a 100% voluntary taxation policy, I don't mind having a "predefined base" + optional taxation kind of system.
    - gw 12y ago
      If it isn't voluntary, the money will eventually find its way there. It's a fungible commodity, and as Congress has often demonstrated, earmarking it for specific uses is notoriously subjective.
      - ekianjo 12y ago
        Well swapping funds around has limits - if you clearly spend the money planned for road improvements or welfare for other uses like war purposes, a simple audit of spending will be able to highlight the misuse - and I'd wage we would need an extremely severe judicial system to punish those involved with the misuse of public money.

coin 12y ago

Is there any good reason to disable mobile zoom on this website?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

memoirmasters 12y ago

Innocent children haunted, crying all the time... what a blood-thirsty, mad government to conduct such evil.

Yardlink 12y ago

I'm constantly bewildered by how Americans keep complaining about the government they elect. I live in a country without democracy so you can understand people complaining, but not in America. Just stop voting for the same parties that keep pissing you off! During his first election campaign, Obama publicly promised to do drone strikes in Pakistan. It's not a surprise that it ended up happening.

adamc 12y ago
I did. It doesn't really help unless large numbers of people do that. Don't take HN or any message board as being a representative sample.