The legal dilemma over drone strikes: justified killings or war crimes?

[Poll_Blind]

6. Dunno technically, but definitely fits the legal definition of crime against humanity

The systemic, indiscriminate killing of groups of persons in Afghanistan/Pakistan by drone-launched Hellfire missiles (but also occasionally by other air platforms) clearly fits the definition of a crime against humanity. The indiscriminate nature of the killings is so completely out of control that the United States has regularly also killed Pakistani troops who it admitted later it had absolutely no reason for being targeted, even as collateral damage because of nearby militarily-legitimate targets. It has even, on occasion, included our own US troops.

Similar crimes against humanity were regularly committed by the Bush Administration as well, although previous strikes from the air were carried out by fighter jets.

Simply put, there is little oversight or recourse over the triggermen and women who launch the attacks via drone. The "bar" for an acceptable target is so low, it's not just laughable, it's criminal. From what I've read, the current bar is as low as a presumed adult male, carrying a longarm and that there are presumed to be no children present. That's it. Well, just about every male over the age of 15 in the region has a rifle, regardless of who they fight for or against.

As shambolic and untrustworthy as the Pakistani government is, only the United States actually tolerates these acts and bears special responsibility for the deaths as a consequence.

These "rules of engagement" are not limited to Afghanistan/Pakistan. The "Collateral Murder" video released by WikiLeaks shows the death of Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen under a very similar if not exact set of rules.

PB