Current U.S. policies on using drones for targeted killing are characterized by ambiguities in interpretations of international law and too many generalities, despite recent efforts by the Obama administration to clarify the policies, a new RAND Corporation report finds.
The report outlines an approach that would provide greater clarity, specificity and consistency in U.S. international legal policies involving the use of long-range armed drones in targeted killing.
"Policymakers in the United States and other countries need to define an overall approach to targeted killing using long-range armed drones that protects civilians and human rights, while also allowing reasonable latitude in the fight against terrorism," said Lynn Davis, the study's lead author and a senior fellow at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "Adopting such an approach would provide a basis for building public support at home and abroad for U.S. policies."
[...] According to the report, the Obama administration's reluctance to pursue international norms has created an environment where countries could employ long-range armed drones in ways that could harm U.S. interests by exacerbating regional tensions and violating human rights through the illegal use of drones to further the agendas of anti-American groups.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 09 2016, @01:34PM
When you have the biggest stick around, you interpret the rules however you want to.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bziman on Friday September 09 2016, @01:47PM
We could stop flying into other people's countries and blowing up their stuff and murdering their people.
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/ [brown.edu]
For every American killed by terrorists at home, we've killed a hundred people abroad. Maybe some were bad guys. But more were just trying to defend their way of life from us. And the overwhelming majority weren't fighting at all... They were just innocent noncombatants trying to survive in their own harsh reality.
Enough war already. If you want peace... then wage peace. It is the only way.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Gravis on Friday September 09 2016, @03:49PM
You fundamentally do not understand what ISIS wants [theatlantic.com] or what al-Qaida wants. [spiegel.de]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday September 09 2016, @05:19PM
ISIS is a bunch of rednecks who can't control any area where their religious group isn't a majority. But they are good at advertising, and one of the best propaganda tools they use is the news of the infidels killing muslims (second best is the news of ISIS idiots killing Westerners).
If non-muslims didn't need the muslim areas (for land in the west, oil in the middle, and whatever the fuck we did in the east), those groups would just have their little local spats like the friendly Africans still do (it's out of fashion in South America and Europe, at least for a little while).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by shortscreen on Friday September 09 2016, @06:32PM
If the US would stop shipping massive quantities of weapons to the middle east, stop funding the religious-extremist Sauds, and stop attempting to overthrow governments, then groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda would be even less of a threat to us than they already are(n't).
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday September 10 2016, @06:21PM
I agree that we should stop all of the above and put all our effort into shifting to electric so there is no need any country to import oil but that would not stop such group from getting weapons and killing people. Frankly, I don't see any of them as much of a threat and the regional governments should be handling them.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday September 12 2016, @07:29AM
I know that bin-laden was totally successful in what he was trying to accomplish. He got us to cower in fear, seeing a boogie man around every corner. We've got TSA agents feeling up the genitals of children and old women, everyone having to take off their shoes to fly in a plane, roving gangs of TSA agents searching people in bus and train stations, our gov't spies on it's citizens harder than they spy on foreign governments.
And we embrace it. Happily. Because we beg them to keep us safe. Stop the next boogie man.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @01:51PM
When RAND Corporation thinks something is too militaristic, you know it's FUBAR.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @02:19PM
Clarity. Yep.
Like maybe when using military force to kill people, one should be pursuing an actual declared war against an enemy? Not using a war-on-drugs-style-perpetual-"war" declaration?
Policymakers in the United States [, the only country to be doing this as far as we know,] need to [justify why they're allowed to] overall [assassinate non-soldiers] using [remote controlled missile delivery systems] that protects [elementary understanding of the "system"], while also allowing [the ability to kill those that the U.S. feels are just REALLY bad people along with any "collateral damage" deemed necessary.]," said Anonymous Coward, someone who uses common sense and sees through political doubletalk and double standards to keep the U.S. Empire on top of the world shitpile. "Adopting such an approach would provide a basis for [deceiving the public using weasel words] and [continue] abroad [ramming] U.S. policies [down the throats of other countries and their peoples.]"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Friday September 09 2016, @02:36PM
This is completely different from what's going on right now: A country employs long-range armed drones in ways that could aid U.S. interests by exacerbating regional tensions and violating human rights through the illegal use of drones to further the agendas of pro-American groups.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday September 09 2016, @05:29PM
Losing chaos-spreading is RAND's last year's worry. Nowadays, they're more concerned about shitty little dictatorships getting their hands on the equivalent of deep strategic bombers under $40K and being able to pull the US civilian rear into US orchestrated resource wars. It's not a nuclear deterrent capable of keeping the whole world at bay when there are serious problems that actually justify a war. But the threat of taking out a US dam or major civilian center is enough to keep US oil prospectors from your backyard.
Of course, a simple solution would be to just bomb anyone who doesn't have nukes right now before things can get worse... But no. No one listens to RamiK... :D
compiling...
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 09 2016, @05:23PM
I never trust anything from RAND Corporation, too many reverse-vampires.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @09:29PM
I'll bite: what's a reverse-vampire? A short-lived, homely, non-charismatic blood-spitter who's never seen in public after dark?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10 2016, @01:53AM
like fuck. 2nd amendment. i have a right to kill with a drone.