Sept. 28, 2014: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Drones (HBO) [Drone murders by George W. Bush and Barack Obama]

2 Responses to Sept. 28, 2014: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Drones (HBO) [Drone murders by George W. Bush and Barack Obama]

1. Langolier says:

   October 6, 2014 at 10:52 am

   Lucas is doing everything he can, to try and make everyone forget that June 30th article about how he had less than 90 days to capture someone for the Dominican Republic, or else face a rubber-stamped extradition to Kenya. Where he is supposedly to receive prison time and/or the death sentence. We’re well past 90 days, and he doesn’t even have a backup story to explain it away, but that’s what happens when you lie big and lie often, Lucas. It gets too big and unruly for you to keep your story straight.
2. Bruce says:

   October 6, 2014 at 4:45 pm

   “Drones” – the video: Serious philosophical and moral challenges presented by John Oliver in an entertaining manner. — THANKS FOR POSTING

   Wikipedia Excerpt – View the complete article at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_combat_aerial_vehicle

   Laws and ethics of war
   …
   The international laws of war (such as the Geneva Conventions) govern the conduct of participants in war (and also define combatants). These laws place a burden upon participants to limit civilian deaths and injuries through proper identification of targets and distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The use of completely autonomous weapon systems is problematic, however, because of the difficulty in assigning accountability to a person. Therefore, current designs still incorporate an element of human control (a “man in the loop”) – meaning that a ground controller must authorize weapons release.

   Concerns also include the human controller’s role, because if he is a civilian and not a member of the military (which is quite possible with developmental and highly sophisticated weapons systems) he would be considered a combatant under international law which carries a distinct set of responsibilities and consequences. It is for this reason that the “man in the loop” should ideally be a member of the military that understands and accepts his role as combatant.[39]

   Controllers can also experience psychological stress from the combat they are involved in. A few may even experience posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).[40][41]

   Professor Shannon E. French, the director of the Center for Ethics and Excellence at Case Western Reserve University and a former professor at the U.S. Naval Academy, wonders if the PTSD may be rooted in a suspicion that something else was at stake. According to Professor French, the author of the 2003 book The Code of the Warrior (ISBN 0-8476-9756-8):[42]

   If [I’m] in the field risking and taking a life, there’s a sense that I’m putting skin in the game … I’m taking a risk so it feels more honorable. Someone who kills at a distance—it can make them doubt. Am I truly honorable?

   On 28 October 2009, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, presented a report to the Third Committee (social, humanitarian and cultural) of the General Assembly arguing that the use of unmanned combat air vehicles for targeted killings should be regarded as a breach of international law unless the United States can demonstrate appropriate precautions and accountability mechanisms are in place.[43]

   The Missile Technology Control Regime applies to UCAVs.

   Collateral damage of civilians still takes place with drone combat, although some (like John O. Brennan) have argued that it greatly reduces the likelihood.[44] Although drones enable advance tactical surveillance and up-to-the-minute data, flaws can become apparent.[45] The U.S. drone program in Pakistan has killed several dozen civilians accidentally.[46] An example is the operation in 2010 Feb near Khod, in Urozgan Province, Afghanistan. Over ten civilians in a three-vehicle convoy travelling from Daykundi Province were accidentally killed after a drone crew misidentified the civilians as hostile threats. A force of Bell OH-58 Kiowa helicopters, who were attempting to protect ground troops fighting several km away, fired AGM-114 Hellfire missiles at the vehicles.[47][48]

   As of March 2013, the evolution of laws governing drones use continued to be debated.[49][50]

   In July 2013, former Pentagon lawyer Jeh Johnson said, on a panel at the Aspen Institute’s Security Forum, that he felt an emotional reaction upon reading Nasser al-Awlaki’s account of how his 16-year-old grandson was killed by a U.S. drone.[51]

   In December 2013, a U.S. drone strike in Radda, capital of Yemen’s Bayda province, killed members of a wedding party.[52] The following February, Human Rights Watch published a 28-page report reviewing the strike and its legality, among other things. Titled “A Wedding That Became A Funeral”, the report concludes that some (but not necessarily all) of the casualties were civilians, not the intended regional Al-Qaeda targets. The organization demanded US and Yemeni investigations into the attack. In its research, HRW “found no evidence that the individuals taking part in the wedding procession posed an imminent threat to life. In the absence of an armed conflict, killings them would be a violation of international human rights law.”[53]

   Professor Faisal Kutty of Valparaiso University Law School argues that the use of drones creates “blowback” and undermines core principles of American identity.[54] He cites statistics from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism,[55] Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the findings of reports issued by Henry L. Stimson Center[56] and a joint report issued by Stanford Law School and New York University School of Law[57] to make his case.[54] The Stimson report was issued by a bipartisan ten-member panel (co-chaired by John Abizaid, a retired US Army general and former chief of US Central Command and Professor Rosa Brooks from Georgetown). The report unequivocally concluded that “The United States should not conduct a long-term killing program based on secret rationales.”[56] Kutty also pointed to an op-ed published by two members of the panel, John B Bellinger III, former legal counsel to the White House National Security Council and Jeff Smith, former legal counsel to the CIA, who wrote arguing that a long-term, secret US drone programme, even if authorised under US law and defensible under international law, may not be consistent with “more basic rule-of-law principles that are at the core of the American identity and that we seek to promote around the world.”[54]
   ———————————————–
   Early drone (UCAV – Unmanned, Combat, Aerial Vehicle) ???