One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:54 am

.

Get outta here Jeff. The last line is that of a mature writer. Well, he's your son. Nice.

I see we haven't had this one yet, about the activation of Skynet:


latimes.com/business/la-fi-auto-drone-20120126,0,740306.story
latimes.com

New drone has no pilot anywhere, so who's accountable?
The Navy is testing an autonomous plane that will land on an aircraft carrier. The prospect of heavily armed aircraft screaming through the skies without direct human control is unnerving to many.




Ah, those "many." Always unnerved about something. It would no longer neutral journalism to ask, "If this prospect doesn't unnerve you, what the fuck is wrong with you?!"


By W.J. Hennigan, Los Angeles Times

January 26, 2012
Advertisement

The Navy's new drone being tested near Chesapeake Bay stretches the boundaries of technology: It's designed to land on the deck of an aircraft carrier, one of aviation's most difficult maneuvers.

What's even more remarkable is that it will do that not only without a pilot in the cockpit, but without a pilot at all.

The X-47B marks a paradigm shift in warfare, one that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. With the drone's ability to be flown autonomously by onboard computers, it could usher in an era when death and destruction can be dealt by machines operating semi-independently.

GRAPHIC: How the X-47B lands

Although humans would program an autonomous drone's flight plan and could override its decisions, the prospect of heavily armed aircraft screaming through the skies without direct human control is unnerving to many.

"Lethal actions should have a clear chain of accountability," said Noel Sharkey, a computer scientist and robotics expert. "This is difficult with a robot weapon. The robot cannot be held accountable. So is it the commander who used it? The politician who authorized it? The military's acquisition process? The manufacturer, for faulty equipment?"

Sharkey and others believe that autonomous armed robots should force the kind of dialogue that followed the introduction of mustard gas in World War I and the development of atomic weapons in World War II. The International Committee of the Red Cross, the group tasked by the Geneva Conventions to protect victims in armed conflict, is already examining the issue.

"The deployment of such systems would reflect … a major qualitative change in the conduct of hostilities," committee President Jakob Kellenberger said at a recent conference. "The capacity to discriminate, as required by [international humanitarian law], will depend entirely on the quality and variety of sensors and programming employed within the system."

Weapons specialists in the military and Congress acknowledge that policymakers must deal with these ethical questions long before these lethal autonomous drones go into active service, which may be a decade or more away.

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said policy probably will first be discussed with the bipartisan drone caucus that he co-chairs with Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-Santa Clarita). Officially known as the Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus, the panel was formed in 2009 to inform members of Congress on the far-reaching applications of drone technology.

"It's a different world from just a few years ago — we've entered the realm of science fiction in a lot of ways," Cuellar said. "New rules have to be developed as new technology comes about, and this is a big step forward."

Aerial drones now piloted remotely have become a central weapon for the CIA and U.S. military in their campaign against terrorists in the Middle East. The Pentagon has gone from an inventory of a handful of drones before Sept. 11, 2001, to about 7,500 drones, about one-third of all military aircraft.

Despite looming military spending cuts, expenditures on drones are expected to take less of a hit, if any, because they are cheaper to build and operate than piloted aircraft.

All military services are moving toward greater automation with their robotic systems. Robotic armed submarines could one day stalk enemy waters, and automated tanks could engage soldiers on the battlefield.

"More aggressive robotry development could lead to deploying far fewer U.S. military personnel to other countries, achieving greater national security at a much lower cost and most importantly, greatly reduced casualties," aerospace pioneer Simon Ramo, who helped develop the intercontinental ballistic missile, wrote in his new book, "Let Robots Do the Dying."

The Air Force wrote in an 82-page report that outlines the future usage of drones, titled "Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan 2009-2047," that autonomous drone aircraft are key "to increasing effects while potentially reducing cost, forward footprint and risk." Much like a chess master can outperform proficient chess players, future drones will be able to react faster than human pilots ever could, the report said.

And with that potential comes new concerns about how much control of the battlefield the U.S. is willing to turn over to computers.

There is no plan by the U.S. military — at least in the near term — to turn over the killing of enemy combatants to the X-47B or any other autonomous flying machine. But the Air Force said in the "Flight Plan" that it's only a matter of time before drones have the capability to make life-or-death decisions as they circle the battlefield. Even so, the report notes that officials will still monitor how these drones are being used.

"Increasingly humans will no longer be 'in the loop' but rather 'on the loop' — monitoring the execution of certain decisions," the report said. "Authorizing a machine to make lethal combat decisions is contingent upon political and military leaders resolving legal and ethical questions."

Peter W. Singer, author of "Wired for War," a book about robotic warfare, said automated military targeting systems are under development. But before autonomous aerial drones are sent on seek-and-destroy missions, he said, the military must first prove that it can pull off simpler tasks, such as refueling and reconnaissance missions.

That's where the X-47B comes in.

"Like it or not, autonomy is the future," Singer said. "The X-47 is one of many programs that aim to perfect the technology."

The X-47B is an experimental jet — that's what the X stands for — and is designed to demonstrate new technology, such as automated takeoffs, landings and refueling. The drone also has a fully capable weapons bay with a payload capacity of 4,500 pounds, but the Navy said it has no plans to arm it.

The Navy is now testing two of the aircraft, which were built behind razor-wire fences at Northrop Grumman Corp.'s expansive complex in Palmdale, where the company manufactured the B-2 stealth bomber.

Funded under a $635.8-million contract awarded by the Navy in 2007, the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration program has grown in cost to an estimated $813 million.

Last February, the first X-47B had its maiden flight from Edwards Air Force Base, where it continued testing until last month when it was carried from the Mojave Desert to Naval Air Station Patuxent River in southern Maryland. It is there that the next stage of the demonstration program begins.

The drone is slated to first land on a carrier by 2013, relying on pinpoint GPS coordinates and advanced avionics. The carrier's computers digitally transmit the carrier's speed, cross-winds and other data to the drone as it approaches from miles away.

The X-47B will not only land itself, but will also know what kind of weapons it is carrying, when and where it needs to refuel with an aerial tanker, and whether there's a nearby threat, said Carl Johnson, Northrop's X-47B program manager. "It will do its own math and decide what it should do next."

william.hennigan@latimes.com

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:39 pm

Welcome to the Machine. Welcome to SkyNet. :wallhead:

Image


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbifrXX2Ltw
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby dbcooper41 » Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:43 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/29/israel-drone-crash_n_1239960.html?ref=world
Israel Drone Crashes During Flight IranAl
JERUSALEM -- The Israeli military says a
drone that can fly as far as Iran has crashed in central Israel on a routine
experimental flight.
The military says there were no injuries in Sunday's crash, and it was
investigating the incident.
The Heron TP drone is also known locally as the Eitan. It has a wingspan of 86
feet (26 meters), making it the size of a Boeing 737 passenger jet. It is the
largest unmanned aircraft in Israel's military arsenal.
The drone figures to be featured prominently in any potential Israeli operation
against Iran and its expanding nuclear program.
Heron TP could provide surveillance, jam enemy communications and connect ground
control and manned air force planes. It's unclear if is could carry a deployable
payload in a potential strike.
User avatar
dbcooper41
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:55 pm
Location: North Carolina
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Jan 31, 2012 3:18 pm

six key words suggesting the required big lie in an otherwise interesting article about the Israeli drone crash wrote:Iran and its expanding nuclear program.


Fuck you, Huffington Post.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby Saurian Tail » Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:59 pm

Now we are on the way to drone bullets. I saw this article linked on John Robb's Global Guerrillas blog where he says those armed with smart bullets should be 100x more lethal than those without. It makes me sick to my stomach.

There is a video at the link.

Sandia Labs' bullet doesn't miss
Scientists patent self-guided bullet


http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/technology ... oesnt-miss

Updated: Tuesday, 31 Jan 2012, 7:50 PM MST
Published : Tuesday, 31 Jan 2012, 7:50 PM MST

Scott Daniels
ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) - Engineers at Sandia National Laboratories have invented a bullet that guides itself to the target.

Sandia has wide expertise at miniature technology, and the bullet works like a tiny guided missile.

The patented design doesn't shoot straight. Instead of a spiral rotation, the bullet twists and turns to guide itself towards a laser directed point. It can make up to thirty corrections per second while in the air.

Jim Jones, distinguished member of technical staff, and his team of engineers at Sandia Labs think the .50-caliber bullets would work well with military machine guns so soldiers could hit their mark faster and with precision.

"We've tested gunpowders to see if we can get muzzle velocity for military interest," Jones said. "We've tested various electronic components to see if they would survive the launch."

The team needs a sponsor to take the prototype and manufacture it on a commercial scale. Research and development grants have taken the project this far.

Jones says it's about halfway through being fully developed for commercial use.

Image
"Taking it in its deepest sense, the shadow is the invisible saurian tail that man still drags behind him." -Carl Jung
User avatar
Saurian Tail
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:11 pm


Congress Calls for Accelerated Use of Drones in U.S.
February 3rd, 2012 by Steven Aftergood

A House-Senate conference report this week called on the Administration to accelerate the use of civilian unmanned aerial systems (UAS), or “drones,” in U.S. airspace.

The pending authorization bill for the Federal Aviation Administration directs the Secretary of Transporation to develop within nine months “a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system.”

“The plan… shall provide for the safe integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30, 2015.”

The conference bill, which still awaits final passage, also calls for establishment of UAS test ranges in cooperation with NASA and the Department of Defense, expanded use of UAS in the Arctic region, development of guidance for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems, and new safety research to assess the risk of “catastrophic failure of the unmanned aircraft that would endanger other aircraft in the national airspace system.”

The Department of Defense is pursuing its own domestic UAS activities for training purposes and “domestic operations,” according to a 2007 DoD-FAA memorandum of agreement. (“Army Foresees Expanded Use of Drones in U.S. Airspace,” Secrecy News, January 19, 2012.)

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2012/02/faa_drones.html


User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:15 pm

Like those smart bullets in that Tom Selleck movie RUNAWAY...

Image

Image


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heMboVN12r0

Saurian Tail wrote:Now we are on the way to drone bullets. I saw this article linked on John Robb's Global Guerrillas blog where he says those armed with smart bullets should be 100x more lethal than those without. It makes me sick to my stomach.

There is a video at the link.

Sandia Labs' bullet doesn't miss
Scientists patent self-guided bullet


http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/technology ... oesnt-miss
Image
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby eyeno » Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 pm

Heat seeking smart bullet conjures up images of people walking around with fishing poles with little buckets filled with red hot coals dangling from the pole. Might work. :shrug:
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby Grizzly » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:20 pm

Surveillance drone industry plans PR effort to counter negative image
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/02/surveillance-drone-industy-pr-effort
Groups representing drone industry want to 'paint a more positive picture' of unmanned surveillance aircraft in UK

Ryan Gallagher
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 February 2012 09.46 EST
larger | smaller
Article history

A police aerial surveillance drone
An aerial surveillance drone. Photograph: John Giles/PA

Companies seeking to enable the routine use of surveillance drones across Britain are planning a long-term public relations effort to counter the negative image of the controversial aircraft.

The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Association (UAVSA), a trade group that represents the drone industry to the UK government, has recommended drones deployed in Britain should be shown to "benefit mankind in general", be decorated with humanitarian-related advertisements, and be painted bright colours to distance them from those used in warzones, details from a UAVSA presentation show.

Plans are also under way to establish corridors of segregated airspace to fly drones – or UAVs – between restricted "danger zones" (airspace where test flights take place) in isolated parts of England and Wales.

A series of presentations given by industry figures in recent months show public opposition is considered a major hurdle. UAVSA has discussed how it could use the media to disseminate favourable stories, creating a narrative that presents the introduction of drones in the UK as part of a "national mission".

A talk three months ago at the Royal Aeronautical Society by Colin Burbidge, UAVSA's head of information services, cited the website Drone Wars UK as an example of the negative publicity the industry must overcome. Drone Wars documents the use of drones in conflict zones and features a database of more than 80 UAV crashes around the world dating back four years.

Chris Cole, the Drone Wars founder, accused the industry of trying to undermine "genuine public debate" about the use of UAVs in Britain. "They know the public don't like it," Cole told the Guardian.

John Moreland, the general secretary of UAVSA, said the industry was uncomfortable with the word "drones" and wanted to find new terminology. "If they're brightly coloured, and people know why they're there, it makes them a lot more comfortable," he said.

"We want to be associated with safe, civil applications [of UAVs] that have a humanitarian, ecological and environmental benefit."

Another UAV consortium, Astraea, which includes the arms manufacturer BAE Systems, has been advised by airspace regulator the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to "paint a more positive picture" of drones to combat fears about "big brother" and "spy in the sky".

Astraea has received more than £30m in public funding as part of an eight-year programme aiming to enable the deployment of drones in all classes of UK airspace, unhindered by restrictive conditions of operation.

Since July 2010, the Ministry of Defence has tested Watchkeeper drones at two restricted "danger zones" in Aberporth, west Wales, at a dedicated UAV centre, and at Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire, a military zone.

UAVs for commercial use have also been tested by private firms in Aberporth, the Guardian has learned, with plans afoot to create corridors of segregated airspace between the Wales drone site and others, including Salisbury, although the CAA says a formal proposal has not yet been made.

Industry sources see the move as part of a progression towards larger sections of UK airspace becoming segregated in the near future, leading to an area of the sky sanctioned explicitly for the use of drones for a range of purposes, including law enforcement, border patrol, firefighting and road traffic monitoring.

The full integration of UAVs across all levels of UK airspace, however, is still considered a long way off.

Plans to introduce military-style drones across the UK, the full scale of which was first revealed by the Guardian in January 2010, have been much delayed owing to concerns they could pose a risk to manned aircraft in Britain's airspace without advanced "sense and avoid" detection technology installed.

Small, low-flying UAVs of 20kg or less – similar in size to radio-controlled model aircraft – can legally be flown under existing UK regulations, provided they have a permit from the CAA.

The latest figures obtained by the campaign group Big Brother Watch show 115 permits were issued between January 2009 and October 2011, with 43 issued between January and October this year. At least five police forces – the Met, Merseyside, Essex, Staffordshire and British Transport police – are known to have used them.

There remains a high level of police interest in military-style drones, which, unlike small UAVs, can fly at heights of more than 20,000ft, making them invisible from the ground.

At a London aerospace conference in October, a Home Office official confirmed the ongoing intention to use UAVs for "persistent reconnaissance" as part of the South Coast Partnership, a government-backed project in which Kent police and others are developing a national drone plan.



And on this side of the blue...


Congress Calls for Accelerated Use of Drones in U.S.
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2012/02/faa_drones.html
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4908
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:32 am

Surveillance drone industry plans PR effort to counter negative image
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/feb/02/surveillance-drone-industy-pr-effort

Groups representing drone industry want to 'paint a more positive picture' of unmanned surveillance aircraft in UK

Ryan Gallagher
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 February 2012 09.46 EST

Companies seeking to enable the routine use of surveillance drones across Britain are planning a long-term public relations effort to counter the negative image of the controversial aircraft.

The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems Association (UAVSA), a trade group that represents the drone industry to the UK government, has recommended drones deployed in Britain should be shown to "benefit mankind in general", be decorated with humanitarian-related advertisements, and be painted bright colours to distance them from those used in warzones, details from a UAVSA presentation show.


Except for the ones that remain in camo shades. They can play good drone, bad drone in on-the-street interrogations.

Plans are also under way to establish corridors of segregated airspace to fly drones – or UAVs – between restricted "danger zones" (airspace where test flights take place) in isolated parts of England and Wales.

A series of presentations given by industry figures in recent months show public opposition is considered a major hurdle. UAVSA has discussed how it could use the media to disseminate favourable stories, creating a narrative that presents the introduction of drones in the UK as part of a "national mission".

A talk three months ago at the Royal Aeronautical Society by Colin Burbidge, UAVSA's head of information services, cited the website Drone Wars UK as an example of the negative publicity the industry must overcome. Drone Wars documents the use of drones in conflict zones and features a database of more than 80 UAV crashes around the world dating back four years.

Chris Cole, the Drone Wars founder, accused the industry of trying to undermine "genuine public debate" about the use of UAVs in Britain. "They know the public don't like it," Cole told the Guardian.

John Moreland, the general secretary of UAVSA, said the industry was uncomfortable with the word "drones" and wanted to find new terminology. "If they're brightly coloured, and people know why they're there, it makes them a lot more comfortable," he said.


God help us, he gets a paycheck for this. What the fuck is wrong with this civilization?

"We want to be associated with safe, civil applications [of UAVs] that have a humanitarian, ecological and environmental benefit."


Hey, I've got a pitch. Do this:

Image
Kommissar Rex (English title: Inspector Rex, Italian title: Il commissario Rex) is a popular Austrian-made police television drama which aired from 1994 to 2004.


Except the friendly police helper is a furry drone! Yes!

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:33 pm


Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals
February 4th, 2012 | by Chris Woods and Christina Lamb | Published in All Stories, Covert Drone War

Missiles being loaded onto a military Reaper drone in Afghanistan.

The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed.

The findings are published just days after President Obama claimed that the drone campaign in Pakistan was a ‘targeted, focused effort’ that ‘has not caused a huge number of civilian casualties.’

Speaking publicly for the first time on the controversial CIA drone strikes, Obama claimed last week they are used strictly to target terrorists, rejecting what he called ‘this perception we’re just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly’.

‘Drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties’, he told a questioner at an on-line forum. ‘This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists trying to go in and harm Americans’.

But research by the Bureau has found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children. A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.

Although the drone attacks were started under the Bush administration in 2004, they have been stepped up enormously under Obama.

There have been 260 attacks by unmanned Predators or Reapers in Pakistan by Obama’s administration – averaging one every four days. Because the attacks are carried out by the CIA, no information is given on the numbers killed.

Administration officials insist that these covert attacks are legal. John Brennan, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser, argues that the US has the right to unilaterally strike terrorists anywhere in the world, not just what he called ‘hot battlefields’.

‘Because we are engaged in an armed conflict with al- Qaeda, the United States takes the legal position that, in accordance with international law, we have the authority to take action against al-Qaeda and its associated forces,’ he told a conference at Harvard Law School last year. ‘The United States does not view our authority to use military force against al-Qaeda as being restricted solely to”hot” battlefields like Afghanistan.’

State-sanctioned extra-judicial executions
But some international law specialists fiercely disagree, arguing that the strikes amount to little more than state-sanctioned extra-judicial executions and questioning how the US government would react if another state such as China or Russia started taking such action against those they declare as enemies.

Related article: A question of legality

The first confirmed attack on rescuers took place in North Waziristan on May 16 2009. According to Mushtaq Yusufzai, a local journalist, Taliban militants had gathered in the village of Khaisor. After praying at the local mosque, they were preparing to cross the nearby border into Afghanistan to launch an attack on US forces. But the US struck first.


Not to mince words here, if it is not in a situation of armed conflict, unless it falls into the very narrow area of imminent threat then it is an extra-judicial execution.
Naz Modirzadeh, Harvard UniversityA CIA drone fired its missiles into the Taliban group, killing at least a dozen people. Villagers joined surviving Taliban as they tried to retrieve the dead and injured.

But as rescuers clambered through the demolished house the drones struck again. Two missiles slammed into the rubble, killing many more. At least 29 people died in total.

‘We lost very trained and sincere friends‘, a local Taliban commander told The News, a Pakistani newspaper. ‘Some of them were very senior Taliban commanders and had taken part in successful actions in Afghanistan. Bodies of most of them were beyond recognition.’

Related article: Witnesses speak out

For the Americans the attack was a success. A surprise tactic had resulted in the deaths of many Taliban. But locals say that six ordinary villagers also died that day, identified by Bureau field researchers as Sabir, Ikram, Mohib, Zahid, Mashal and Syed Noor (most people in the area use only one name).

Yusufzai, who reported on the attack, says those killed in the follow-up strike ‘were trying to pull out the bodies, to help clear the rubble, and take people to hospital.’ The impact of drone attacks on rescuers has been to scare people off, he says: ‘They’ve learnt that something will happen. No one wants to go close to these damaged building anymore.’

The legal view
Naz Modirzadeh, Associate Director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) at Harvard University, said killing people at a rescue site may have no legal justification.

‘Not to mince words here, if it is not in a situation of armed conflict, unless it falls into the very narrow area of imminent threat then it is an extra-judicial execution’, she said. ‘We don’t even need to get to the nuance of who’s who, and are people there for rescue or not. Because each death is illegal. Each death is a murder in that case.’


Waziristan residents hold up missile fragments from drone strikes in October 2010 / Noor Behram

The Khaisoor incident was not a one-off. Between May 2009 and June 2011, at least fifteen attacks on rescuers were reported by credible news media, including the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press, ABC News and Al Jazeera.

It is notoriously difficult for the media to operate safely in Pakistan’s tribal areas. Both militants and the military routinely threaten journalists. Yet for three months a team of local researchers has been seeking independent confirmation of these strikes.

Eyewitness accounts
The researchers have found credible, independently sourced evidence of civilians killed in ten of the reported attacks on rescuers. In five other reported attacks, the researchers found no evidence of any rescuers – civilians or otherwise – killed.


Because we are engaged in an armed conflict with al- Qaeda, the United States takes the legal position that, in accordance with international law, we have the authority to take action against al-Qaeda and its associated forces.
John Brennan, counterterrorism adviser to ObamaThe researchers were told by villagers that strikes on rescuers began as early as March 2008, although no media carried reports at the time. The Bureau is seeking testimony relating to nine additional incidents.

Often when the US attacks militants in Pakistan, the Taliban seals off the site and retrieves the dead. But an examination of thousands of credible reports relating to CIA drone strikes also shows frequent references to civilian rescuers. Mosques often exhort villagers to come forward and help, for example – particularly following attacks that mistakenly kill civilians.

Other tactics are also raising concerns. On June 23 2009 the CIA killed Khwaz Wali Mehsud, a mid-ranking Pakistan Taliban commander. They planned to use his body as bait to hook a larger fish – Baitullah Mehsud, then the notorious leader of the Pakistan Taliban.

‘A plan was quickly hatched to strike Baitullah Mehsud when he attended the man’s funeral,’ according to Washington Post national security correspondent Joby Warrick, in his recent book The Triple Agent. ‘True, the commander… happened to be very much alive as the plan took shape. But he would not be for long.’

The CIA duly killed Khwaz Wali Mehsud in a drone strike that killed at least five others. Speaking with the Bureau, Pulitzer Prize-winner Warrick confirmed what his US intelligence sources had told him: ‘The initial target was no doubt a target anyway, as it was described to me, as someone that they were interested in. And as they were planning this attack, a possible windfall from that is that it would shake Mehsud himself out of his hiding place.’

Up to 5,000 people attended Khwaz Wali Mehsud’s funeral that afternoon, including not only Taliban fighters but many civilians. US drones struck again, killing up to 83 people. As many as 45 were civilians, among them reportedly ten children and four tribal leaders. Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud escaped unharmed, dying six weeks later along with his wife in a fresh CIA attack.


A funeral for victims of a US drone strike.

Clive Stafford-Smith, the lawyer who heads the Anglo-US legal charity Reprieve, believes that such strikes ‘are like attacking the Red Cross on the battlefield. It’s not legitimate to attack anyone who is not a combatant.’

Christof Heyns, a South African law professor who is United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extra- judicial Executions, agrees. ‘Allegations of repeat strikes coming back after half an hour when medical personnel are on the ground are very worrying’, he said. ‘To target civilians would be crimes of war.’ Heyns is calling for an investigation into the Bureau’s findings.

One of the most devastating attacks took place on March 17 last year, the day after Pakistan had released American CIA contractor Raymond Davis, jailed for shooting dead two men in Lahore. Davis had been held for two months and was released after the payment of blood money said to be around $2.3m.

A case of retaliation?
The Agency was said to be furious at the affair. The following day when a massive drone strike killed up to 42 people gathered at a meeting in North Waziristan, Pakistani officials believed it to be retaliation.


Such strikes ‘are like attacking the Red Cross on the battlefield. It’s not legitimate to attack anyone who is not a combatant.
Clive Stafford Smith, ReprieveThe commander of Pakistan forces in the area at the time was Brigadier Abdullah Dogar. He admits that in drone attacks in general ‘people invariably get reported as innocent bystanders’. But in that case he has no doubt. ‘I was sitting there where our friends say they were targeting terrorists and I know they were innocent people’, he said.

Related article: Get the Data: Obama’s terror drones

The mountains in the area contain chromite mines and the ownership was disputed between two tribes, so a Jirga or tribal meeting had been called to resolve the issue.

‘We in the Pakistan military knew about the meeting’, he said, ‘we’d got the request ten days earlier.’

‘It was held in broad daylight, people were sitting out in Nomada bus depot when the missile strikes came. Maybe there were one or two Taliban at that Jirga – they have their people attending – but does that justify a drone strike which kills 42 mostly innocent people?’

‘Drones may make tactical gains but I don’t see how there’s any strategic advantage’, he added. ‘When innocent people die, then you’re creating a whole lot more people with an issue.’

Growing tensions
Drone attacks have long been a source of tension between the US and Pakistan despite the fact that the Pakistan government gave tacit agreement, even allowing them to fly from Shamsi airbase in the western province of Baluchistan, while publicly denouncing the attacks.

In return the US made sure that some of the terrorists killed were those targeting Pakistan.

However the relationship has been stretched to breaking point, first with the raid to kill Osama bin Laden in May and subsequent US accusations of Pakistani complicity, then the NATO bombing of a Pakistani post in November, killing 24 soldiers. In December Pakistan ordered the CIA to vacate the Shamsi base. For a while drone attacks stopped but they resumed two weeks ago.


I was sitting there where our friends say they were targeting terrorists and I know they were innocent people.
Brigadier Abdullah Dogar, former commander Pakistan forcesThe US claims the drones are a vital tool that have helped them almost wipe out the leadership of al Qaeda in Pakistan. But others point out they have stoked enormous anti-American sentiment in a country with an arsenal of 200 nuclear weapons.

Peter Singer, director of the 21st Century Initiative at the Brookings Institution, points out the operation has never been debated in Congress which has to approve sending US forces to war.

So dramatic is the switch to unmanned war that he says the US now has 7,000 drones operating and 12,000 more on the ground, while not a single new manned combat aircraft is under research or development at any western aerospace company.

After a remarkable lack of debate, there is starting to be unease in the US at the lack of transparency and accountability in the use of drones particularly as the campaign has expanded to hit targets in Libya, Yemen and Somalia and until recently to patrol the skies in Iraq.

Three US citizens were killed by missiles fired from drones in Yemen last September. Anwar al Awlaqi, an alleged al Qaeda operative, was deliberately targeted in what some have described as the US government’s first ever execution of one of its own citizens without trial. His colleague and fellow citizen Samir Khan also died in the attack. Two weeks later Awlaqi’s 16 year old son Abdulrahman died in a strike on alleged al Qaeda militants.

Such unmanned war is a politician’s dream, avoiding the inconvenience of sending someone’s son or daughter, mother or father, into harm’s way.

The fact that the operations are carried out by the CIA rather than the US military enables the administration to evade questions. The Agency press office responds to media inquiries on the subject with no comment and refusal to give names of those killed or who are on the target list.

Until Obama’s comments last week, the White House would not even confirm the programme existed.

‘We don’t discuss classified programs or comment on alleged strikes’, said a senior administration official in response to the findings presented by the Sunday Times.

Lawsuit
The ACLU filed a lawsuit last week demanding the Obama administration release legal and intelligence records on the killing of the three US citizens in in Yemen.

Privately some senior US military officers say they are extremely uncomfortable at the way the administration is carrying out these operations using the CIA which is not covered by laws of war or the Geneva Convention.

The use of drones outside a declared war zone is seen by many legal experts as setting a dangerous precedent. Aside from allies such as Israel, Britain and France, other countries have drone technology including China, Russia and Pakistan. Iran recently captured a downed US drone.

Heyns, the UN rapporteur, said an international legal framework is urgently needed to govern their use.

‘Our concern is how far does it go – will the whole world be a theatre of war?’ he asked. ‘Drones in principle allow collateral damage to be minimised but because they can be used without danger to a country’s own troops they tend to be used more widely. One doesn’t want to use the term ticking bomb but it’s extremely seductive.’

Additional reporting by Rahimullah Yusufzai in Peshawar, Pakistan

Christina Lamb is the Washington Bureau Chief of the Sunday Times

Related links:
Analysis: New rules in play as CIA drones return to Pakistan skies
Get the Data: Obama’s terror drones
Witnesses speak out
Four civilians reported killed in latest CIA drone strike
Analysis: Obama outs CIA drone campaign – but do his words add up?


http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... -funerals/

User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:35 pm


Get the Data: Obama’s terror drones
February 4th, 2012 | by Chris Woods | Published in All Stories, Covert Drone War | 4 Comments

The remains of a house destroyed in a CIA drone strike in Waziristan, April 2009 (Noor Behram)

As part of its ongoing investigation into the US covert war the Bureau has examined thousands of credible media reports relating to more than 310 Central Intelligence Agency drone strikes in Pakistan.

These incidents were reported by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Guardian, CNN, ABC News, Reuters, Associated Press, AFP, the BBC, Al Jazeera, and reputable Pakistani media (see bottom table).

CIA drone strikes tend to be reported on a case-by-case basis. Yet it became clear to the Bureau that a number of specific tactics were being deployed. These included multiple attacks by drones on rescuers attempting to aid victims of previous strikes. There were also a number of credible reports of funerals and mourners being attacked by CIA drones.

With the aid of Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yusufzai in Peshawar, the Bureau has spent four months working with independent researchers in Waziristan seeking to validate the reports. Villagers, militants and local officials have been questioned, and attempts made to identify those killed in the strikes.

Findings
The results provide independent verification of the tactics reported. Of the 18 attacks on rescuers and mourners reported at the time by credible media, twelve cases have been independently confirmed by our researchers. In each case civilians are reported killed, and where possible we have named them.

Strike Date Location Bureau’s Summary Findings
16/5/09 Khesoor North Waziristan Attack confirmed. Nine civilian rescuers reported killed – six named as Sabir, Ikram, Mohib, Zahid, Mashal and Syed Noor, all from the Utmanzai Wazir tribe. Four Taliban rescuers also died.
18/6/09 Wana, South Waziristan Attack confirmed. Four civilian rescuers reported killed, named as Jehanzeb, Liaqat, Daraz and Sabil. Three Taliban rescuers also died.
23/6/09 Miram Shah, North Waziristan Attack confirmed. Supportive evidence. Between 18 and 45 civilians reported killed among up to 83 fatalities in strike on funeral.
17/12/09 Degan, North Waziristan Attack confirmed. Eyewitness testimony. Six civilian rescuers reported killed, five named as Bashirullah, Amir Khan, Shairullah, Abidullah and Fazle Rabbi, all of the Dawar tribe.
18/12/09 Degan, North Waziristan Attack confirmed. Five civilian funeral prayer-goers reported killed, four named as Syed Noor, Shakirullah, Banaras and Fayyaz.
6/1/10 Datta Khel North Waziristan Attack confirmed. Five civilian rescuers reported killed, four named as Khalid, Matiullah, Kashif, Zaman and Waqar, all of the Utmanzai Wazir tribe. No Taliban rescuers were reported killed.
2/2/10 Pai Khel North Waziristan Attack confirmed. Five civilian rescuers killed, named as Noor Janan, Farhad, Samad, Salam and Baseer. Four Taliban rescuers also died.
10/3/10 Datta Khel Attack confirmed. Four civilian rescuers killed, named as Gulzar, Shamim, Majan and Sarwar. Two Taliban rescuers reported to have died.
16/4/10 Toor Khel North Waziristan No confirmation. According to researchers no rescuers were killed.
15/9/10 Danda Darpakhel, North Waziristan Attack confirmed. Eyewitness testimony. Five civilian rescuers of the Dawar tribe reported killed, named as Yahya, Samin, Niamatullah, Shahzad and Ilyas. Three Taliban rescuers also reported killed.
20/9/10 Darazinda North Waziristan No confirmation – researchers could find no evidence of rescuers killed.
22/9/10 Azam Warsak, South Waziristan Unconfirmed.
13/10/10 Datta Khel Attack confirmed. Three civilian rescuers killed – named as Bashir, Wajid and Laiq – along with five Taliban rescuers.
28/12/10 Ghulam Khan, North Waziristan Attack confirmed. Two civilian rescuers reported killed, named as Jamil and Mustafa. No Taliban rescuers were reported among the dead.
28/12/10 Ghulam Khan Eyewitness testimony. Not an attack on rescuers or civilians, according to researchers. Only militants died.
1/1/11 Mandi Khel North Waziristan No rescuers killed, according to researchers.
11/3/11 Khesoor Attack confirmed. Five civilian rescuers reported killed, named as Noor Gul, Jaffar, Faraz, Musa and Kamal. Five Taliban rescuers also reported killed.
20/6/11 Khardand, Kurram Agency Although all of those killed were reportedly civilians, no rescuers were targeted in the attack.
12/7/11 Dray Nashtar, North Waziristan Although not reported at the time by media, researchers claim that four civilian rescuers – named as Shabbir, Kalam, Waqas and Bashir died in the attack.

In six of the original cases the Bureau cannot confirm that rescuers and funeral-goers have been killed. So while, for example, all of those killed on June 20 this year were reported to be civilians, no evidence was found in the field that rescuers were involved. On other occasions, according to our researchers, only militants died and no rescuers were involved.

The Bureau’s researchers also identified one attack on rescuers, which had not been reported. They were told it took place on July 7, 2011 – which would make it the last known CIA attack on rescuers.

According to villagers in Waziristan, rescuers were also attacked on nine further occasions beginning on March 15 2008. The Bureau is continuing to work with its researchers to obtain further information and validation relating to these additional drone strikes, which are not included in the present data.


Locals offer funeral prayers for the victims of a drone strike in Miranshah, North Waziristan February 15, 2009


Original claims of attacks on rescuers and funeral-goers as reported by leading media.

Strike Date Location Alleged Target Reported by
16/5/09 Khesoor, North Waziristan Rescuers at housing compound The News
18/6/09 Wana, South Waziristan Rescuers at alleged Taliban compound New York Times, AFP
23/6/09 Miram Shah, North Waziristan Funeral-goers AFP, New York Times, London Times (paywall)
17/12/09 Degan, North Waziristan Rescuers at a house CNN
18/12/09 Degan, North Waziristan Funeral prayers for victims of previous strike Daily Times
6/1/10 Datta Khel North Waziristan Rescuers at alleged militant compound AFP, CNN, Al Jazeera, Pajhwok (Afghan news agency)
2/2/10 Pai Khel North Waziristan Possible rescuers in two vehicles New York Times
10/3/10 Datta Khel Rescuers at alleged militant compound The News, Al Jazeera
16/4/10 Toor Khel North Waziristan Rescuers at car AFP
15/9/10 Darga Mandi North Waziristan Rescuers at housing compounds Pakistan Tribune
20/9/10 Darazinda North Waziristan Rescuers at motorbike AFP
22/9/10 Azam Warsak, South Waziristan Funeral prayers for victims of previous strike (confused reports) Al Jazeera
13/10/10 Datta Khel Rescuers at house and car Associated Press
28/12/10 Ghulam Khan, North Waziristan Rescuers at compound after they waited three hours CNN, ABC News, Al Jazeera
28/12/10 Ghulam Khan Vehicle with wounded Dawn
1/1/11 Mandi Khel North Waziristan Rescuers at compound after they waited two hours Associated Press, Al Jazeera
11/3/11 Khesoor Rescuers at vehicle AFP, Dawn, Pakistan Observer
20/6/11 Khardand, Kurram Agency Rescuers at car Associated Press


http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... or-drones/

User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:10 pm

Michael Hayden, former CIA director came out against drone strikes to kill U.S. citizens. Cenk Uygur reads Mr. Hayden's comments and discusses his opinion of these drone strikes.


"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: One Drone Thread to Rule them ALL

Postby elfismiles » Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:21 pm

Thanks Bruce!

Bruce Dazzling wrote:
Michael Hayden, former CIA director came out against drone strikes to kill U.S. citizens. Cenk Uygur reads Mr. Hayden's comments and discusses his opinion of these drone strikes.

User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 162 guests