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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by RamiK on Friday September 09 2016, @05:29PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Friday September 09 2016, @05:29PM (#399718)

    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...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2