This could bite the US on the bum one day. There are some clever people in some of the so called terrorist countries and it will not be beyond their capabilities to copy and perhaps improve on the US drone technology.
It would be ironic if the next "terrorist attack on the US were carried out by drones, operated from ships out at sea or even from clandestine bases in the US.
The Iranians have a drone they brought down and are probably reverse engineering it now

This is the first article I've seen from the Democrats that nails Obama as the militarist he undoubtedly has become. After all the hype associated with "Yes, we can", not only has he adopted the obscenity of drone bomb attacks killing innocent civilians, but he has also increased surveillance of American citizens by the security forces to an unprecedented degree and extended the notion of executive privilege well beyond where even Dick Cheney and George Bush wanted to take it.

To date, this sort of analysis has been lambasted by the Left as evidence of Tea Party madness so it's interesting to see Democrats starting to doubt the Obama magic. In the end, perhaps even the Left will start talking about the primacy of "We, the people".

The use of armed UAVs (drones) in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia has coincided with an absence of major Islamic terrorist attacks in the West since late 2005. The authors appear ignorant of that fact. The US's counter-terrorist success using drones should therefore not be taken for granted.

Furthemore it is no coincidence that the necessary targeting information was partly gained from Osama bin Laden (based on his electronic and written messages) from the time he moved into the Abbottabad compound in late 2005.

The planners of the Western counter-terrorist effort argue on legal grounds that the US drone campaigns are valid under international law. In contrast terrorists totally disregard the validity and existence of international law.

Pete

Cohn & Mirrer: Strange, a couple of obviously Jewish ladies supporting the propagators of terror, strange. But, never the less, I'm up for some fun here.

1. President Obama has approved the killing of people, many of whom were not even identified before the kill order was given.

Obama doesn't personally approve each strike. All strikes are meticulously planed well ahead of time before approval by the "Base Commander." is given. They know who & why these particular people are where they are.

2. members of Al-Qaeda who are desirous of committing acts of terror against the people of the United States there is no basis in law for our government to declare war on individuals it considers a threat.

3. The United States has legal means to indict and extradite, both under U.S. and international law.

The US has tried that & for some strange reason the people named have refused to submit themselves to the Law. Go figure. So, just like the Police they have to go & arrest them where they are hiding. If they resist arrest then deadly force is deemed appropriate.

4. between 282 and 585 civilians have been killed, including more than 60 children.

I suppose, if we asked them nicely not to use their wives & children as human shields, do you think they might comply? Or, do they use their wives & children as a deterrent to being targeted on purpose? Another reason they have the W & C with them is because they don't trust their women to be on their own. Other men will rape them.

5. targeting "suspected militants" (called "personality strikes") in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, even killing a U.S. citizen, has authorized expanded drone attacks.

6. "patterns of behaviour" at sites controlled by a terrorist group. These are known as "signature strikes."

Suspected Militants? I think not. The US acts on the intelligence gathered. Satellites, Ground & electronic information & "patterns of behaviour"& go into meticulous planning well before a strike.

7. run afoul of the Geneva Conventions, which include wilful killing as a grave breach.
You have just negated your own argument.


8. Drone attacks also violate well-established principles of international law_______Grave breaches of Geneva are punishable as war crimes under the U.S. War Crimes Act.

The administration justifies its use of armed drones with reference to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that Congress passed just days after the September 11 attacks.

In the AUMF, Congress authorized force against groups and countries that had supported the terrorist strikes.

Self defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter is a narrow exception to the Charter's prohibition of the use of force or the threat of force to settle international disputes. Countries may engage in individual or collective self-defence only in the face of an armed attack.

9. Navi Pillay recently declared that U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan violate the international law principles of proportionality and distinction.

See above.

10. The United States has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The ICCPR states: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." The Covenant also guarantees those accused of a crime the right to be presumed innocent and to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal. Targeted killings abrogate these rights.

The US has to abide by these Laws. Do you think the Terrorists have to abide by them too. Or do you think it's OK for them to hide behind their human Shields & create mayhem as whenever they see fit.

11. They quoted Faisal Shahzad, who, while pleading guilty to trying to detonate a bomb in Times Square, told the judge, "When the drones hit, they don't see children."

Considering that Terrorists have killed thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent women & children, I haven't read any condemnation by you of what they have done. Even now that the US has pulled out of Iraq the terrorists killing goes on. Yet you haven't condemned them. WHY NOT?

13. Ibrahim Mothana, who wrote an op-ed in the Times titled "How Drones Help Al Qaeda," agrees. "Drone strikes are causing more and more Yemenis to hate America and join radical militants; they are not driven by ideology but rather by a sense of revenge and despair," Mothana observed.

Well he would claim that wouldn't he. Since he supports the Terrorist cause. I beg to differ. & my opinion if just a valid as his. The Radical Muslim Mullers are rife in Yemen, & Somalia. Somalia the country where the West saved the children 20 odd years ago. Now these same people are trying to destroy the West. They are the new terrorists & maritime highjackers urged on by the Mullers.