A January 2011 report by Bloomberg stated that civilian casualties in the strikes had apparently decreased. According to the report, the U.S. Government believed that 1,300 militants and only 30 civilians had been killed in drone strikes since mid-2008, with no civilians killed since August 2010.[494]posted by Ironmouth at 2:12 PM on November 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
On 14 July 2009, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution stated that although accurate data on the results of drone strikes is difficult to obtain, it seemed that ten civilians had died in the drone attacks for every militant killed. He suggested that drone strikes may kill "10 or so civilians" for every militant killed, which would represent a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 10:1.
The New America Foundation believes that between zero and 18 civilians have been killed in drone strikes since 23 August 2010 and that overall civilian casualties have decreased from 25% of the total in prior years to an estimated 6% in 2010. The Foundation estimates that between 277 and 435 non-combatants have died since 2004, out of 1,374 to 2,189 total deaths.[215]
According to a report of the Islamabad-based Conflict Monitoring Center (CMC), as of 2011, more than 2000 persons have been killed, and most of those deaths are of innocent civilians. The CMC termed the CIA drone strikes as an "assassination campaign turning out to be revenge campaign", and showed that 2010 was the deadliest year so far as regards casualties resulting from drone attacks, with 134 strikes inflicting over 900 deaths.[495]
According to the Long War Journal, as of mid-2011, the drone strikes in Pakistan since 2006 had killed 2,018 militants and 138 civilians.[496] The New America Foundation stated in mid-2011 that since 2004 2,551 people have been killed in the strikes, with 80% of those militants. The Foundation stated that 95% of those killed in 2010 were militants.[497]
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism based on extensive research found in mid-2011 that at least 385 civilians were among the dead, including more than 160 children.[498]
The CIA has claimed that the strikes conducted between May 2010 and August 2011 killed over 600 militants and did not result in any civilian fatalities; this assessment has been criticized by Bill Roggio from the Long War Journal and other commentators as being unrealistic. Unnamed American officials who spoke to the New York Times claimed that, as of August 2011, the drone campaign had killed over 2,000 militants and approximately 50 noncombatants.[11]
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.if you have some actual information supporting your position, let me know. But you are grossly misinformed.
18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatusposted by Joe in Australia at 6:09 PM on November 6, 2011 [2 favorites]
Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.So all it would take is for the Secretary of Defense to change the regulations and call in the Marines. But note that 10 U.S.C. § 375 doesn't mention the Coast Guard. That's under the Department of Homeland Security, which is why the Coast Guard can carry out law enforcement duties generally. But, I hear you ask, surely the Coast Guard couldn't carry out operations inland? Ah, I respond, look at its plentiful authority under 6 U.S.C. § 468. I bolded the really interesting bit:
(2) Homeland security missionsSo it looks as though the Coast Guard can carry out inland law enforcement without even a change in regulations!
The term “homeland security missions” means the following missions of the Coast Guard:
(A) Ports, waterways and coastal security.
(B) Drug interdiction.
(C) Migrant interdiction.
(D) Defense readiness.
(E) Other law enforcement.
I'll give it five to ten years before a law enforcement drone kills an American citizen on American soil, while being operated by agents located in another stateNow you've claimed that that the Posse Comitatus Act means that this could never happen. In your words:
There's a law called the Posse Comatis Act that expressly prohibits use of military as law enforcement in the US.With my awesome research powers, I reached all the way into the second sentence of the first paragraph on the WikiPedia entry for Posse Comitatus, which states:
Its intent [of Posse Comitatus] (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) was to limit the powers of local governments and law enforcement agencies from using federal military personnel to enforce the laws of the land. Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any orders to do so must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.So, not only are you completely and utterly wrong, but there have already been cases where the military has killed US citizens during police action. From Major General (Ret.) James D. Delk during the 1992 LA Riots:
The second shooting incident turned out to be by far the most important. A gang member had taunted Guardsmen from the division's support command, telling them he was coming back to kill them that night. This was a rather common threat, but this man was not kidding. He returned in his car after curfew and attempted to run them down. They jumped out of the way, but were not fast enough. One Guardsman was hit, but not seriously. The gang member drove off for a while before returning for his second attempt. When he refused to stop, the Guardsmen fired about 10 rounds at his tires in an attempt to stop him. When it was clear he was determined to run Guardsmen down, they finally used deadly force and killed him with one bullet in the. shoulder and two in the head.I have no idea how someone with case law experience in this area — if you in fact have it — is so colossally misinformed. But I'm starting to think that I could make a good living as a lawyer, if you're representative of the competition.
“The aircraft has the capability to have a number of different systems on board. Mostly, for law enforcement, we focus on what we call less lethal systems,” he said, including Tazers that can send a jolt to a criminal on the ground or a gun that fires bean bags known as a “stun baton.”The "mostly" appears to be a way of eliding the fact that the spec sheet for the MK III model they bought can be
“You have a stun baton where you can actually engage somebody at altitude with the aircraft. A stun baton would essentially disable a suspect,” he said.
weaponized with either 40mm, 37mm grenade launcher or 12 gauge shotgun with laser designator (military/LE use only.)posted by Joe in Australia at 4:01 PM on November 7, 2011
here's the hypo:It wasn't even a nice try at changing the hypothetical. It was ugly and obvious.
I'll give it five to ten years before a law enforcement drone kills an American citizen on American soil, while being operated by agents located in another state.
al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen.
Stopping the pirates of Somalia hasn’t been easy. But when the navies of the world have repelled or killed the hijackers, it’s often involved three elements: helicopters, drones and trained snipers. The U.S. Army is working on a weapon which combines all three...The range in the hundreds of yards is no issue. They are designed for urban warfare, and could easily be operated by a federal agent in another state under the pretense of "restoring order" or, what's more likely, as part of a narcotics operation. The DEA kills innocent people all of the time. I know this may shock you, as they aren't legally allowed to, but word on the street is that sometimes people jaywalk and litter too. (You didn't hear it from me.)
The system is intended for the urban battlefield — an eye in the sky that can stare down concrete canyons, and blink out targets with extreme precision. Attempting to return fire against the ARSS is liable to be a near-suicidal act: ARSS is described as being able to fire seven to 10 aimed shots per minute, and it’s unlikely to miss...
The stabilized turret could be fitted to a variety of other vehicles — including a a small blimp, or a fixed-wing unmanned plane, like the Predator.
There's a law called the Posse Comatis Act that expressly prohibits use of military as law enforcement in the US.And you also said
Huh? You simply do not understand the law in this area. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of military forces for policing.To put it bluntly, you were wrong abou everything you had to say about drones, and your position on Posse Comitatus is, at best, incoherent. The drones already exist. The US military has already killed US citizens during police action on US soil. What shall prevent the two from becoming true at once, besides the fantasies inside of your head?
I don't think the systems are anywhere near as accurate as you claim. How are they aiming a shotgun or taser?First of all, how the hell would you know anything about what is and isn't state of the art? Second of all the original idea was the operator would be in another state, but the drone would be only be few tens of meters away. Claiming that people were talking about firing a rifle from another state is just illiterate.
…
Listen, its fantasy to think that a drone is going to be operated in one state and fire a rifle into another state and kill someone. this was the hypo.
« Older Beautiful Type... | This video introduces the conc... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by nevercalm at 12:50 PM on November 6, 2011 [10 favorites]