Yeah ... but the probability remains the same anyway, right?

probability?

@red ... a veiled reference to this thread:

http://www.webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=979866#979866

Warning ... not safe for brain cells.

That did my head in!

Is my brain cavity half empty, or half full, or is my skull simply twice as big as it needs to be?

Which law does it break, out of interest?

Hague Convention (III) of 1907 on the Opening of Hostilities

Also technically because the CIA are directing the drones, according to Prof. David Glazier, a law expert called to give evidence to the House of Representatives on the issue recently:

"“CIA personnel are civilians, not combatants, and do not enjoy any legal right to participate in hostilities on our behalf.

“Under the legal theories adopted by our government in prosecuting Guantanamo detainees, these CIA officers as well as any higher level government officials who have authorized or directed their attacks are committing war crimes.”

Source: http://www.nouse.co.uk/2013/03/05/cia-drone-attacks-branded-illegal-in-us-house-of-representatives-hearing/

The problem with the Hague Convention is that it deals with nations acting in a unified manner. Country A declares war on Country B, with Country A's soldiers fighting Country B's. It was a less complicated period in history. The problem with Pakistani terrorists is that the Pakistani government (officially) is fighting these people just as much as the United States is... It is up to Pakistan to interpret the drone attacks as an act of war against itself, rather than some of its inhabitants, and follow the Hague Convention if it wants to start a war over it with the US.

We should restrict all drone strikes to US soil against US citizens. Then we'd at least get a little entertainment value for our tax dollars - get to watch interesting stories on the Nightly News, maybe even do live-feeds - the Thursday Night Drone Strike Show.

As it is, we get no entertainment value, and it really does nothing but create global enemies, without reducing terrorist threats. Don't say it does, because that can't be proven, but we do know that it creates open hostility towards the US

Seriously, drone strikes on US soil is the most dumb concept that's been proposed in a long time. I don't want the house next to mine getting blown up even if there's a terrorist inside. Give them a fucking trial. It's really not hard.

@krellin - while I agree in principle, you can't prove it doesn't reduce the risk of terrorism either. The accudation of ineffectiveness was made by you, the accuser, therefore the burden of proof falls on you to support your supposition.

I would love the USA to go around the world spending all their tax revenues on wars with evil despots, unfortunately most of the evil despots are either people previously supported by the US govt or people who came to power as a direct result of taking an anti-American stance. US foreign policy seems to guarantee future generations of homicidal maniacs wanting to get revenge for acts of war carried out by the US, drone attacks on the innocent is just one of many ways of creating your own perpetual war against terror ..... sadly :-(

Well said Nigee

Draug - we fly drones over Pakistan and blow up convoys, houses, etc. We don't swoop in to check the bodies, do DNA testing, etc. We most often cause collateral damage. We now have a rise in public protests against the US, flag burning, etc....not to mention the fact taht since Obama took office and stepped up the public use of drones, we have had a marked increase in terrorist activity against us, which I will site as this: The Afghan soldiers we train to be our allies have a nasty tendencies to turn their brand new guns on their US trainers...

Right which is why you can not prove the effectiveness either way.

I understand you can't prove effectiveness either way - but anecdotal evidence - which is all we have at this points - suggests it does more harm than good.

Funny, every time Bush burped or farted Obama and crew claimed he was helping the terrorist recruiting efforts, and we needed to just back the fuck down and bring the troops home. Now that Obama has remote-controlled bombers, we're not quite so concerned about recruiting terrorists as we blow up convoys of vehicles and buildings without having *any* clue who we have killed.

Where is Code Pink these days, anyway? And all the anti-war Demoncrats?

I'm just applying Senator Obama's own set of rules and stated beliefs...and suggesting drone use overseas is a far greater threat to US security than it is a help.

It's politics and rhetoric...we don't need silly things likes facts and data to muddy up the arguments!

Waterboard one guy, the terrorist have won the war...

Drone-KILL a countless number of random people with accompanying collateral damage...and we are winning the war on terror...

Reallllllly....