Drone attacks are acts of terrorism for pakistanis
The former head of the CIA’s legal division responsible for targeted killings gives a little insight into the practice of death sentences executed by drones
For years, U.S. Forces drove a drone war in the afghan-pakistan border war, tolerated by the pakistani government, to use targeted strikes to kill taliban or al-qaida fighters with hellfire missiles. The purpose of the drone war, which is legally controversial but is also covered by the other states participating in ISAF, such as germany, is to deny insurgents space to retreat and thus weaken them in afghanistan. The attacks are legally controversial because it is not clear whether they are legal military actions under international law in a war sanctioned by the united nations or extralegal executions that take place in a country with which the U.S. Is not at war (targeted killings with combat drones increasingly violate international law).
Under bush, the drone war began in 2004 with isolated attacks; it intensified with obama’s inauguration and troop surge. According to the new american foundation, which attempts to list drone strikes, since 2004 up to the end of january, as many as 2.189 people have been killed, of which between 1.097 and 1.754 to be militants and 32 suspected fighters.
Since neither the americans nor the pakistani government, which has been fiddling with this ie for years, are interested in transparency, it remains unclear how successful the drone attacks really are and how many civilians or bystanders fall victim to them. The CIA ames that hardly any civilians die. The new american foundation said that civilian casualties had fallen sharply, to just 8 percent in 2010. Houses and vehicles are the main targets of shelling. Attacks and deaths have doubled year after year.
How the death sentences come about
A report in newsweek promises to provide insight into "killing machine". Combat drones are known to be operated by two pilots at a time in the U.S. Reported here is the beautiful story of how a vehicle belonging to an alleged senior taliban fighter is being tracked. You wait for the vehicle to stop and the man to get out. Only then is fired, the other occupants of the vehicle are not hit. So the targeted killings with drones are supposed to be that precise, but then they are more like an assassination from afar.
Apparently, at least according to the newsweek article, the deaths were caused by an "multilayered and methodical" bureaucracy managed by civilian employees, or rather. Legally legitimized. This is what the journalist learned from john rizzo, who until recently worked as the head of the legal department at the CIA, which is responsible for drone attacks. Nicht nur die CIA, auch das militar hat ein eigenes drohnen-totungsprogramm. It is suspected that under obama they do not want to catch and imprison suspects any more, because torture is no longer to be used in the case of interrogations. Therefore one prefers the dead to the arrest. Rizzo himself defends torture at the protests to a certain extent. Most people had survived these, but not a death sentence executed by drone.
U.S. President obama apparently wants nothing to do with the executions, nor does he check the people on the death list. Somehow CIA agents pick out those to neutralize and put the reasons for it in a document: "there are people we are looking for. And we thought it was better to neutralize this threat now", rizzo describes the process, in which he ultimately won the "death sentence" signed for a suspect thousands of miles away, if it was sufficiently justified for him to do so. There were never more than 30 names on the list during his time: "no. 1 and no. 2 on the hit parade are still out there, you-know-who and ayman al- zawahiri." special "methodical" and it doesn’t sound very precise when a decision is being made about the death of a human being.
Pakistanis reject the drone attacks
People in pakistan’s tribal areas on the border with afghanistan reject the permanent threat above their heads. Only 16 percent believe it really targeted militants, according to a poll. 48 percent believe civilians are the predominant victims, while a third think both militants and civilians have been killed. 75 percent reject drone strikes, and protests against them continue to take place. The drone war was therefore allowed to increase anti-american and anti-western sentiment and to strengthen the islamists, who can also use the acquiescence of the pakistani government for themselves.
A survey of 395 pakistani journalists conducted by washington state university and pakistan’s lahore university of management sciences, the results of which were published in the new york times, confirms the rejection. For 67 percent of journalists who help shape public opinion in the country, drone attacks are acts of terrorism. 87 percent do not want U.S. Troops operating in their country, and 84 percent believe that the U.S. Interferes in pakistan’s politics without justification. Nevertheless, the majority is by no means anti-american, but rather appreciates the U.S. And americans, but criticizes U.S. Foreign policy.
They do not see U.S. Policy as the main threat to their country, but rather terrorism, political instability and the economic situation. It is also interesting that journalists place their identity as a muslim higher than that as a journalist or as a pakistani citizen. Belief permeates self-understanding, but assessment is not uniform. Three-quarters believe that belief in god is important for moral decisions, and almost half say that politicians who do not believe in god should not be in office. For 53 percent, clerics should not try to influence elections, 59 percent say the government should not legislate against sharia law. Separation of state and religion does not seem to be very important or attractive even to journalists.
