Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday September 09 2016, @12:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the like-we-said dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @02:19PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09 2016, @02:19PM (#399617)

    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.]"

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1