5
   

Stanford Law School report on Drone Airstrikes

 
 
oralloy
 
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 07:56 am

Here is the report that Stanford Law School and New York University School of Law released today regarding drone airstrikes:

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf

It's a longish read (182 pages), and basically says we are causing way too much harm to innocents.

Needless to say I disagree with them. But regardless of my disagreement, I think the report is still worthy of download and consideration.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 4,241 • Replies: 52

 
Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 10:47 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:


Here is the report that Stanford Law School and New York University School of Law released today regarding drone airstrikes:

http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf

It's a longish read (182 pages), and basically says we are causing way too much harm to innocents.

Needless to say I disagree with them. But regardless of my disagreement, I think the report is still worthy of download and consideration.


Well, if one equates the safety of one U.S. pilot's life to any lives lost with the use of drones, it is a fair trade, in my opinion (of course).
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 11:03 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Well, if one equates the safety of one U.S. pilot's life to any lives lost with the use of drones, it is a fair trade, in my opinion (of course).
That is .... how many children have to been killed? (176 were killed by drones so far according to the study)
Foofie
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 11:11 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Well, if one equates the safety of one U.S. pilot's life to any lives lost with the use of drones, it is a fair trade, in my opinion (of course).
That is .... how many children have to been killed? (176 were killed by drones so far according to the study)


But, they were not American children. Correct? You are making the mistake to think that I am a citizen of the world, so to speak, and subscribe to a universal concern for mankind. Sorry, I am only concerned with Americans as my emotional top priority. You my dear Walter are in the same basket, so to speak, with the rest of humanity sans American citizens.

And, specifically in my opinion, Europeans often yawned so loud, so to speak, when they heard of the Holocaust, I cannot care much for their opinions. Let's wait 500 years or so to see if I can change my thinking.
Walter Hinteler
 
  5  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 12:11 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
Sorry, I am only concerned with Americans as my emotional top priority. You my dear Walter are in the same basket, so to speak, with the rest of humanity sans American citizens.
Well, I have a different understanding of humanity. Christian heritage, education and all that left some marks, you know.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 12:55 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Foofie wrote:
Well, if one equates the safety of one U.S. pilot's life to any lives lost with the use of drones,
it is a fair trade, in my opinion (of course).
Walter Hinteler wrote:
That is .... how many children have to been killed?
(176 were killed by drones so far according to the study)
Do u recommend going back to infantry invasions ?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 02:08 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Sorry, I am only concerned with Americans as my emotional top priority. You my dear Walter are in the same basket, so to speak, with the rest of humanity sans American citizens.
Well, I have a different understanding of humanity. Christian heritage, education and all that left some marks, you know.


T'ain't you the angel! Having my family safe from European nationalism over the last 130 years, or so, "left some marks, you know" on my criteria as to which humanity I can commiserate with. Please practice English with other posters.

P.S. Your "Christian heritage" is your "Catholic heritage." Please do not confuse Catholicism and its "replacement theology" with Protestant theology. The U.S. being a Protestant nation is what allows Jews to be given a "fair shake," in my opinion, in the U.S. Note that even in Germany, the Catholics and Protestants tend to inhabit different sections.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 02:49 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Note that even in Germany, the Catholics and Protestants tend to inhabit different sections.
That tended to be, correct, due to cuius regio eius religio. And that ended in 1806.

Foofie wrote:
The U.S. being a Protestant nation is what allows Jews to be given a "fair shake," in my opinion, in the U.S.
Quote:
The majority of Americans (76% to 80%) identify themselves as Christians. ...
... the five largest denominations are:[19]
The Catholic Church, 68,503,456 members
The Southern Baptist Convention, 16,160,088 members
The United Methodist Church, 7,774,931 members
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6,058,907 members
The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members
SourceGermany:
Roman Catholics: 24.472.817
Evangelical Church of Germany: 23.896.089 (data as of 28.08.2012Source
contrex
 
  2  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 03:46 pm
What an obscene piece of **** is a "foofie".


Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 05:03 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:

Note that even in Germany, the Catholics and Protestants tend to inhabit different sections.
That tended to be, correct, due to cuius regio eius religio. And that ended in 1806.

Foofie wrote:
The U.S. being a Protestant nation is what allows Jews to be given a "fair shake," in my opinion, in the U.S.
Quote:
The majority of Americans (76% to 80%) identify themselves as Christians. ...
... the five largest denominations are:[19]
The Catholic Church, 68,503,456 members
The Southern Baptist Convention, 16,160,088 members
The United Methodist Church, 7,774,931 members
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6,058,907 members
The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members
SourceGermany:
Roman Catholics: 24.472.817
Evangelical Church of Germany: 23.896.089 (data as of 28.08.2012Source



So, it seems like a nation (the U.S.) with a vast majority of Christians is using drones that upset you? How come your "Christian" teachings didn't seem to be effecting the use of drones by the U.S.?

Again, it appears to me that you are making the claim that Christianity is all the same. It is balkanized. The U.S. was a white Protestant nation prior to 1850(except for Black slaves - that would be a bigger sin than any drone attacks). When Catholics came from Europe (to man the assembly lines, or be some other sort of manual labor) the Protestants were able to industrialize the nation. Now today, Catholics and Protestants both contribute to the country's welfare. However, in my opinion, Protestants still have the largest stake, wealth wise in the nation. So, if you do not like drones, there are many Christians, Protestant or Catholic to complain to. I have no input to the course of this nation.

But, in my initial analogy that the life of one U.S. pilot, in my opinion, is more valued than those children that you say were casualties in drone attacks, also forgets that U.S. pilots have families. Yes, I value a U.S. pilot's children and wife more than those unfortunate children that were casualties.

In my opinion, your rhetoric makes me wonder if the U.S. was completely wise to effect the Berlin airlift, considering the U.S. was willing to not let the Soviets starve West Germany into submission, only six years after Germany had been a declared enemy. Does the U.S. meet your standards for ethical behavior by not vanquishing its prior enemy (Germany) and then helping them survive the Soviet threat?

Lastly, were any children casualties in the firebombing of Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Nagasaki? Do the math. Drone casualties do not compare to those military actions. But, if you would claim that a drone attack is as bad as the firebombing of Dresden, I might understand that logic.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 05:16 pm
@contrex,
contrex wrote:

What an obscene piece of **** is a "foofie".


And pray tell, why would that be? I only tell the truth, be it my opinion, or facts as I understand them? You are not an American I take it, and might not appreciate freedom of speech?

Your profile states your country is Espana. Well, even if you are not a Spaniard, you are residing in a country that when the Moors were kicked out, the Inquisition had the audacity to claim that Spanish Jews were not authentic Spaniards, when the Spanish Jews had come to Iberia 300 BC, and were the true authentic Spaniards, since they came before the pagan Visigoths that ultimately became whatever.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 05:25 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
It's a longish read (182 pages), and basically says we are causing way too much harm to innocents.

Needless to say I disagree with them. But regardless of my disagreement, I think the report is still worthy of download and consideration


With all due respect life is too short to be reading such a long document concerning Stanford Law School and New York University School of Law opinion on what our national leadership had decided to do in a military sense in dealing with the ongoing terrorism threat.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2012 05:32 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
That is .... how many children have to been killed? (176 were killed by drones so far according to the study)



If the people and the leadership of that territory wish to reduced the risks to their children they might wish to stop granting shelter to enemies of ours that had no problem with killing our children.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2012 07:34 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
So are you for or against them?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2012 07:37 pm
Where are the Obama supporters?

Why aren't they flooding this thread with defensive posts for the great Killer of Bin Laden?
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2012 01:28 am
@oralloy,
I think it's a shame that this thread was hi jacked by posters who are unwilling to even consider what has been said in the Stanford Law School and New York University School of Law findings.

There is a great deal of relevant information in it, which would lead to a far better understanding of the impact of the drone attacks on Pakistan.

I have by no means read the entire 182 pages yet (about 1/3rd of the way through) , but intend to.

There has obviously been a huge impact on the civilian population which is barely acknowledged in our news reports.
Here's a quote from early in the report:

Quote:
...the label “militant” also fails to distinguish between so-called “high-value” targets with alleged leadership roles in Al Qaeda or anti-US Taliban factions, and lowlevel alleged insurgents with no apparent access or means of posing a serious or imminent threat to the US.
National security analysts — and the White House itself— have found that the vast majority of those killed in drone strikes in Pakistan have been low-level alleged militants.149

Based on conversations with unnamed US officials, a Reuters journalist reported in 2010 that of the 500 “militants” the CIA believed it had killed since 2008, only 14 were “top-tier militant targets,” and 25 were “mid-to-highlevel organizers” of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or other hostile groups.150

His analysis found that “the C.I.A. [had] killed around 12 times more low-level fighters than "mid-to-highlevel” during that same period.151

More recently, Peter Bergen and Megan Braun of the New America Foundation reported that fewer than 13% of drone strikes carried out under Obama have killed a “militant leader.”152
Bergen and Braun also reported that since 2004, some 49 “militant leaders” have been killed in drone strikes, constituting“2% of all drone-related fatalities.” ....
153


...
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2012 03:37 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Where are the Obama supporters?

Why aren't they flooding this thread with defensive posts for the great Killer of Bin Laden?


Interesting fantasy world you live in given that it was by Obama orders that we send in the seal team to kill the man.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2012 03:47 am
@msolga,
Quote:
There has obviously been a huge impact on the civilian population which is barely acknowledged in our news reports.
Here's a quote from early in the report:


Most of us do not give a **** given that the people and their leadership are allowing the terrorists to live amount them and that they are offering shelter and other form of support to them.

An since when are so call low level enemies any less worth killing then high level enemies in a war?

It nice to kill a general from time to time but a private that might kill you in a raid tomorrow is also a valid target.
msolga
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2012 04:38 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Most of us do not give a **** ....

I know you don't, Bill.
So what's new?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2012 05:34 am
@msolga,
Yes and you are more then willing to cry tears over a people who shelter our enemies who are more then willing to kill our women and children in massive numbers.

Strange thinking if you can call it thinking.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Stanford Law School report on Drone Airstrikes
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/15/2022 at 11:15:39