Most Americans Are OK With Drone Strikes, Rest of the World Mostly Unconvinced

According to Pew, most Americans approve of the United States’ drone war campaign. Sixty-two percent of polled Americans approve of strikes against suspected militants in foreign countries.

Although most Americans support the war America wages with UAVs, the rest of the world is mostly disapproving. Interestingly, disapproval is global, with people from countries in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, all expressing overwhelming dissatisfaction with America’s drone campaign. From RT’s reporting on the study:

In Greece, 90 percent of those surveyed condemn America’s drone strikes, followed closely by Egypt’s 89 percent.

Drone strikes are also condemned in Jordan (85 percent), Turkey (81 percent), Spain (76 percent), Brazil (76 percent) and Japan (75 percent).

The drone campaign being executed abroad might be enjoying popular support in the United States in part because of some commonly believed myths about the comparatively humane and accurate methods used in the strikes. While many might like to think that drones strikes minimize civilian casualties the reality is a sobering reminder of the contrary. A joint Stanford and NYU study on U.S. drone strikes found that the number of “high level” targets killed account for perhaps only 2 percent of the total casualties inflicted and act as powerful recruitment material for some rather unpleasant people (full report here):

The strikes have certainly killed alleged combatants and disrupted armed actor networks. However, serious concerns about the efficacy and counter-productive nature of drone strikes have been raised. The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%.[4] Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks.

It probably doesn’t help the cause of stability in the Middle East that the Yemeni president acknowledges that he approves of every drone strike carried out by the U.S. on his country. Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi might approve, but if the recent terrorist attacks against his government’s officials (often times in response to missions against Al Qaeda) are any indication the drone strikes are not achieving their objective.

In continuing drone strikes abroad the U.S. government has seemingly cast aside the battle for hearts and minds. In Pakistan, where many of these drone strikes occur, 74 percent of Pakistanis polled view the United States as an enemy. Turns out having a bombs dropped on your country and having fellow countryman killed by unmanned aircraft doesn’t help endear you to the United States.

The attitude Americans have about foreigners being harassed by drones is very different to the attitude we have about drones over our own heads. As Scott reported last week, slightly over a third of Americans “oppose” or “strongly oppose” police departments getting their own unmanned drones. You’ve got to draw the line somewhere, right?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • mr lizard||

    That's tough talk from the broke Greeks....even though they're right.

  • FD||

    It's because when they were asked about drone strikes, they thought they were talking about labor walk-outs in absentia.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    If the Greeks had drones they'd be all in favor of them.

    They weren't complaining about napalm when they had a monopoly and were incinerating Ottoman Turks with it.

  • BarryD||

    Yup.

    Let's get real, here. When people see it as "us vs. them" the answer is always, "let them die, not us!"

    When it's third parties fighting each other, it's all about "peace!"

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Will even more Americans change their tune when a government drone comes to an airspace near them? Let's watch.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Presumably the drones in question won't be armed, so it's not really comparable.

  • Cytotoxic||

    We're never going to hear the end of that Stanford study that relies on interviews with strange and not necessarily trustworthy people.

    Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi might approve, but if the recent terrorist attacks against his government’s officials (often times in response to missions against Al Qaeda) are any indication the drone strikes are not achieving their objective.

    Given that AQ controlled Yemeni towns not too long ago, it seems the situation there is on the upswing. Granted, that's mostly due to the brave decisive actions of the Yemeni army, but Drone was there too.

    In continuing drone strikes abroad the U.S. government has seemingly cast aside the battle for hearts and minds.

    God lets hope so. Well it's about fucking time. The whole 'win hearts and minds' bit has been a disaster in Afghanistan. Their hearts and minds are not with winning.

    You’ve got to draw the line somewhere, right?

    Yes. It is wholly sensible to draw the line at domestic use. That's why we don't have tanks on the street...okay except for an increasing number of absurd SWAT teams.

    If the rest of the world has a problem with America's self-defense needs, then fuck them.

    America rest of world

  • John Thacker||

    It's also sensible to ask that drones be integrated into our Army and Air Force instead of piloted by the CIA, that military targets be chosen instead of civilian, that American citizens not be condemned by the President alone for drone strikes, etc.

    You're defending the drone war you'd like to have, not the one we've got.

  • BarryD||

    "You're defending the drone war you'd like to have, not the one we've got."

    Good point.

    That's the problem with focusing on the drones, not the war and how it's being conducted.

    Except for the fact that drones seem to trivialize the decision to attack, the drones aren't the issue. Say we did the whole thing with stealth aircraft, but every other aspect of the military action was identical. This wouldn't make it any more OK.

  • entropy||

    Hmm. Well if the CIA was doing it with stealth bombers, that would actually make it worse.

    Ought not be the CIA with the drones anyhow.

  • BarryD||

    There you go. That identifies the real problem.

    The drones are a distraction, IMO.

  • John Thacker||

    Making it about the drones-as-method is a distraction. But the drones do happen to be the means used for this program.

    Sure, it's a story of a fancy new bit of kit, and different parts of the government fighting over who is going to get these toys. A big reason why the CIA has moved in I imagine is that there's more reluctance using them from the Air Force and Navy guys who feel that it's not "real" flying. CIA doesn't have that holding them back.

    There's a place for drones in the armed forces. But this drone program we have is the wrong way.

  • entropy||

    But the CIA is the CIA. It's a civilian agency.

    Friedersdorf made a good point - the military requires an officer to issue that kind of order, having been trained in very clear and specific protocols.

    It seems the whole point of having the CIA bomb people would be to avoid those sort of protocols in places where the strike would not meet that criteria, so you do the whole thing in a cloak of secrecy.

    I do not trust the CIA with this technology 1/15th as much as I would trust the USAF.

  • sloopyinca||

    If the rest of the world has a problem with America's self-defense needs, then fuck them.

    Self-defense now includes killing Pakistani wedding parties because they live near some guy who said something bad about America from his hut that lacks electricity or running water and is 10,000 miles away from the nearest American civilian? OK, then.

  • John Thacker||

    The Conor Friedersdorf article I linked above is apropos.

    The idea of the Air Force and Navy replacing piloted aircraft with drones? Fine. The actual policies of drone warfare that we're pursuing? Not fine.

  • BarryD||

    Precisely.

    Or perhaps the actual policies of WARFARE that we're pursuing... Drones aren't the real issue.

  • Paul.||

    If we can shoot a guy's wife and kid living in a cabin in the woods for purchasing a sawed-off shotgun, we can drone-strike the shit out of a Pakistani wedding party.

    Hell, we'll torch a compound full of kids on allegations of child abuse. Abuse of the kids we torched. Fuck you, that's why.

    Biden 2016!

  • ||

    Don't worry Sloopy, blowback is just a myth, because there aren't Hispanic terrorists, or something like that.

    Just like the works of Ayn Rand could not have possibly ever turned someone onto libertarianism regardless of what they say, because if that was true then everyone who ever read any of those works would also turn to libertarianism. The fact that they don't proves that the first group, who claims that as their instigation, are lying.

  • BarryD||

    Blowback is not a myth.

    The problem is that discussions about it never tend to be prescriptive -- and they also tend to be dismissive of the many reasons for enmity.

  • tarran||

    You're arguing with a homicidal maniac that thinks that carpet bombing cities is OK, cause the dead will either be our allies or enemies (enemies ≡ not allies), and if allies will welcome dying in a good cause or if enemies deserving it.

    If Cytotoxic had been born in waziristan, he'd be throwing acid in schoolgirls' faces.

    He's an uncivilized barbaric savage that isn't worth acknowledging.

  • InlineSkate||

    Drones quite literally foster a knock one out and 2 more will replace them environment. I'm not sure why we are still even bothering with this war. The US out of all countries should know that a big army simply does not work against a well organized militia. The army is guaranteed to lose every damn time. One reason being that militants don't have to play by the same rules.

    We have numerous examples of this. Vietnam, Revolutionary War, and so on. It's not a winnable war. Give the fuck up.

  • BarryD||

    "Drones quite literally foster a knock one out and 2 more will replace them environment"

    Nukes, however, don't.

    Ultimately, we can blame the anti-nuke movement for drones.

  • Virginian||

    The US out of all countries should know that a big army simply does not work against a well organized militia. The army is guaranteed to lose every damn time.

    Absolutely fucking false.

  • ||

    Explain.

    The examples in my mind are:

    Vietnam (which the big army was winning but the American Will gave out)

    Arabia in WW1 - Arabs won but were backed by England and the Turks were distracted by a big army vs big army war

    Afghanistan - Soviets lost...no idea why

    Chechnya - Soviets lost...again no idea why.

    Looks to me to be mixed bag.

  • ||

    Chechnya - Soviets lost...again no idea why.

    Opps looks like the soviets won....still no idea why nd still a mixed bag.

  • sloopyinca||

    Looks like John won't have to stop off at his newsstand and pick up the latest copy of Plumpers and Big Women magazine (look it up. It's real) to jack off to tonight. The title of this story probably got him off all on its own.

  • Paul.||

    Cancel my subscription...

  • Paul.||

    According to Pew, most Americans approve of the United States’ drone war campaign. Sixty-two percent of polled Americans approve of strikes against suspected militants in foreign countries

    About the same percentage as are going to vote for Obama. Interesting...

  • Paul.||

    from countries in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, all expressing overwhelming dissatisfaction with America’s drone campaign.

    But yet continuing to approve of Obama in general.

    Can anyone tell I'm depressed today?

  • ||

    It's the evil republicans in congress forcing him to do it, so he doesn't appear "soft" and lose reelection. It's for the Greater Good.

  • John Thacker||

    Sixty-two percent of polled Americans approve of strikes against suspected militants in foreign countries....The attitude Americans have about foreigners being harassed by drones is very different to the attitude we have about drones over our own heads. As Scott reported last week, slightly over a third of Americans “oppose” or “strongly oppose” police departments getting their own unmanned drones.

    62 percent approve is "very different" from "slightly over a third oppose?" How does that math work?

    I'd say that those sound pretty similar, depending on whether both polls offered a neutral option and what percentage it got. If it was a choice of four options, then 62% approve or strongly approve, 37% oppose or strongly oppose would fit both descriptions.

  • Paul.||

    Either way, Obama gets his second term. Think of it as a drone-strike mandate.

  • Scott S.||

    The domestic one had 44 percent in support and a chunk in the middle.

  • BarryD||

    "Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks."

    And sending in the SEALs doesn't have the same effect?

    "Drone" has little to do with these arguments against drone strikes.

    It's like the annual chorus of peaceniks who wail about how wrong it was to nuke Hiroshima, but don't give a shit about Dresden.

  • Paul.||

    And sending in the SEALs doesn't have the same effect?

    They'd be worse, which is why we don't use them. This way we don't even have to commit boots on the ground, making it much easier to attack people in foreign countries we're not even at war with.

  • tarran||

    YOu can't send Seals on attack missions day in and day out.

    The pilots who fly drones kiss their wives goodbye in Colorado before driving to the base and starting their shift.

    The morally crippled imbecilles in the US govt have no clue what they are setting the stage for.

  • Paul.||

    The morally crippled imbecilles in the US govt have no clue what they are setting the stage for.

    I believe they do, and they just don't care. Which makes it worse.

  • BarryD||

    +1

    Or, it could even be worse than "don't care".

  • BarryD||

    On the one hand, I don't like the fact that this makes it easier to give the order to kill people.

    Obama didn't really want to give the "no-brainer" order for special forces to take out Bin Laden, but the selfsame man-boy-in-chief has no qualms about ordering hundreds of drone strikes. And that is a big deal, and a scary big deal, that is not bound to end well. Even if someone trusts Obama for some unfathomable reason, the precedents will apply to the next President, and the next -- just like some who trusted Bush with the PATRIOT Act don't like the escalated warrantless monitoring now done by the Obama administration.

    But... The whole "countries we're not even at war with" thing doesn't hold a lot of water with me. I don't think we'll see another World War I, where "world leaders" meet, decide that it would be fun to send a few million of their young men to die in the trenches, sign papers to that effect, and have cocktail hour.

  • Paul.||

    But... The whole "countries we're not even at war with" thing doesn't hold a lot of water with me.

    Ok, if it makes it more palatable, congressional approval of hostilities.

    I don't think it requires WWI to make a conflict constitutional. If we can get congressional approval to engage in hostile activities within the borders of a foreign, sovereign nation-- that would be a nod towards constitutionality.

  • BarryD||

    Now you're talking sense. :)

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Just wait until we have the technology for drone soldiers.

  • Paul.||

    We've got one for Drone Presidents... why can't it be adapted?

  • Calidissident||

    I think using SEALS or other special forces would actually work out better, provided we used them only to take out guys who were actually plotting to attack American and had the means to do it, instead of every guy that said something bad about America. There'd be less collateral damage

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Boots on the ground in a sovereign country is much more problematic.

  • BarryD||

    Not for Al Qaeda, apparently. They can kill an American ambassador, in a sovereign country, and the American President will lie for them, to help them get away with it.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't think the bin Laden raid was more problematic than the drone war. I don't think the occasional incursion by a small group of men to apprehend a terror suspect is more problematic than constant droning of noncombatants, intentional or not. And I never said we shouldn't work with the local government, if possible

  • BarryD||

    "I don't think the bin Laden raid was more problematic than the drone war."

    President Obama sure as shit did.

  • Calidissident||

    He's an idiot. That's confirmation that I'm right

  • sloopyinca||

    I cannot put this more clearly: our drone war, as we are waging it, is immoral, illegal and against the tenets of our nation. It provides for no national defense, enrages our international counterparts and punishes people for free speech. Anybody that supports our drone war in its current state is a horrible human being that accept murder as a justifiable punishment for speaking against America while outside our borders.

    The First Amendment is guaranteed to all men according to our Constitution, yet we murder people who do no more than exercise it in another part of the world. I would ask them how they would feel if Pakistanis sent hit squads to America to exact revenge for insulting Allah. Would we stand idly by and allow it?

  • Paul.||

    I would ask them how they would feel if Pakistanis sent hit squads to America to exact revenge for insulting Allah. Would we stand idly by and allow it?

    At this time I would have to say that Obama would strongly...strongly condemn those who insult the Prophet Muhammed, then say this awful, ugly, hateful statements are no excuse for violence. Then he'd pull all of our non-essential personnel out of the area being attacked.

  • sloopyinca||

    No, he'd just send murderdrones over there and kill a bunch of innocent people rather than bring the guilty to justice. He does it every fucking day already. I can't see the formula changing, only the intensity of his war against free speech overseas.

  • BarryD||

    You forgot about leaving our essential personnel unprotected, and lying to the American people about who conducted the attacks, and why.

  • GILMORE||

    You consider the resume of, say, the Haqqani Network, "exercising free speech?"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....ed_attacks

    Them, the Quetta Shura, and a few other crews are the usual targets for these attacks, FWIW. If we were acing these guys by 'other means'... would it make you feel better?

    I'd generally agree with most of your points... but to claim we're not involved in any kind of "war" with Pakistan is a little naive. Or do you really think they never had any idea that Osama Bin Laden was living in the Punjab West Point?

    I personally don't lose sleep at night feeling horrible about violating Pakistani 'sovereignty'

  • sloopyinca||

    If those people were the actual targets, then why doesn't our government make it widely known what their victims were up to and who they were up to it with? Perhaps if they did this, the locals would stand up and rid themselves of these supposed evildoers. No, I just can't believe that is actually the case, especially in the absence of any evidence saying these people did anything stronger than talk bad about us.

    And as far as OBL living in Pakistan, the people who knew about him living there did coordinate with the US and help us kill him conventionally. Of course, our government outing them isn't exactly an incentive for others to help us, but you're changing the subject anyway. They have borders. We have no right to violate those borders unless we want to allow people to do the same to us and punish people for violating their sensibilities here (like we do when we kill people 10k miles away who can't do a bit of harm to us).

    And while you may not feel bad about how we murder Pakistanis, do you feel bad about the Yemenis we have killed? The Sudanese? The Iraqis? The Libyans? Etc...?

    When will the expansion of murders to quash free speech end? Will you be happy as long as they occur outside the US? Because there are people talking as much shit about us in England, France and Australia right now, and they have the financial means to do a lot more than the poor goat farmers we're murdering in the middle east do.

  • GILMORE||

    Perhaps if they did this, the locals would stand up and rid themselves of these supposed evildoers

    I guess you're not real hip to the whole Northwest Frontier Provinces political scene.

    These 'supposed evildoers' are the Grand Poobahs of the region.

    especially in the absence of any evidence saying these people did anything stronger than talk bad about us

    I guess you didn't read the linky-link about all the Haqqani-sponsored assasinations and bombings in afghanistan either.

    Look, I think there's a legitimate case to be made that this particular use of force is illegal, used indiscriminately, and is increasingly popular as a 'risk free' way of waging war, which simply makes war all the more easy to get involved in...

    ...however, trying to paint the crazy pashto scumfucks as victims of an 'anti free speech campaign', is pretty fucking stupid and uninformed.

    re: Yemenis et al - no, not really. See point above. I object to the method for the stated reasons. I dont get up in a moral tizzy though about most of those who it is we're waxing, however.

  • Calidissident||

    And they're terrorists cause the government says so. They never lie. We should trust their every word.

  • GILMORE||

    The implication that the Haqqanis, Hekmatyar, et al are in fact just innocents painted as 'bad guys' by the big lying government who only wants them dead because they hate brown people is *so* much more plausible.

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a.....trep_day_3

  • Calidissident||

    You drop two names out of thousands who have died? Did I say EVERY person killed was innocent. No. I'm sure a lot are bad people. Even then, most of them either pose no threat to us, or only pose a threat to our troops who shouldn't be there any more in the first place. Do you honestly think that had we withdrawn from Afghanistan years ago and not started the drone war, that a large percentage of the thousands killed would have participated in terror attacks against America? And yeah, I do think the government has a good reason to lie about who they kill. Doesn't mean guys like Haqqani aren't scumbags, but when your policy is to assume a male of military age is a terrorist, unless proven otherwise, then you're going to lie about a lot of people. I can never understand how people who think the government is a bunch of lying, incompotent, immoral fools suddenly becomes an honest, wise, and moral entity when conducting foreign policy

  • GILMORE||

    The "two names" are just two Leadership Groups of very large militant networks that both run much of the NWFP, as well have been involved in violence in Afghanistan ever since the Naibullah administration of 1992.

    To answer your rhetorical questions (which is all they amount to, given your apparent insistence on knowing nothing about the actual groups involved or the history of the region)... no, I don't think they'd be "attacking america" = but they kill plenty of Americans, Afghans and Pakistanis indiscriminately *now*, and wouldn't stop after we go.

    Look, you're tilting with a contrived strawman - not me. Go read a book (or at least do some homework on the AfPak channel @ FP) before you equate your rambling generalizations and platitudes to well-reseached analysis of the issues in the region. I'm not a supporter of drone strikes, but my reasons don't require sympathizing with or making bullshit claims about the people we're actually targeting. The fact is, if we weren't trying to kill these people, the Pakistanis would be, but dont - because they'd far rather the people hate US rather than the Pak govt, which it should be noted: these very same groups were responsible for the killing of Bhutto as well as dozens of attacks within Pakistan against both the government as well as minority populations. At least have a point that includes *some* pertinent information.

  • GILMORE||

    **the fact is, if we weren't trying to kill these people, the Pakistanis would be, but dont...

    Well, more specifically = they *tried*, and it didn't work out all that well:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....t_Pakistan

    in that particular "anti-terror" campaign in the region, ~20,000 people were killed (4K Pakistani soldiers/16K 'locals' - of which probably 1/3 were actually enemy fighters)

    So - if you consider previous attempts to eradicate TiT, Haqqani, LeT/LeI, TSNM, Mehsudis, etc.... the drones are comparatively benign. Do I think its the best policy? Probably not - mainly for the precedent set. Do a wail in sorrow for the people who get "droned"?

    Not by a long shot.

    What bothers me most about this discussion is that almost no one seems to have spent the last 10 years paying any fucking attention at all to the region or the issues in any detail. You bemoan all the 'innocent victims'... but probably couldn't find Waziristan on a map without Google.

  • juris imprudent||

    a 'risk free' way of waging war

    That right there is the dangerous delusion driving the whole problem. There isn't a neo-con running dog that would put his own or his kid's ass on the line. This is the ultimate fucking video-game wet-dream for those spineless motherfuckers.

  • GILMORE||

    , the people who knew about him living there did coordinate with the US and help us kill him conventionally

    Where'd you get that tidbit of intel, exactly?

    You seem a little quick to write off 9 years+ of Pakistan shielding the worlds most wanted terrorist as 'an oversight'?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So you think the Secret War was good policy?

  • BarryD||

    Was it better or worse policy than the Vietnam War?

    I mean, it's important to identify exactly what it is we object to.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I mean, engaging in military action in a sovereign country with out a declaration of war, and covering up that fact.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    The First Amendment is guaranteed to all men according to our Constitution, yet we murder people who do no more than exercise it in another part of the world.

    That's a stretch. It only applies to our jurisdiction. "Congress shall make no law..." Congress isn't making a law.

  • sloopyinca||

    We (our government) believed the rights were endowed to all men, not just the ones living within the existing United States when the Declaration was written. They openly discussed the rights of all men and meant for us to apply the rules to people both domestic and foreign regardless of where they were.

    Yes, only laws are applicable inside our jurisdiction, but I've always believed the spirit of those laws meant we would not execute or otherwise punish people overseas for things we consider sacrosanct within our borders. That's the height of hypocrisy.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I don't think we should either but it's a matter for policy decisions. Not the Constitution.

  • Calidissident||

    The Constitution does not just apply to Americans

  • Tulpa Doom||

    But it only applies to American-controlled territory. The supreme Law of the Land, not the law of the world.

  • Calidissident||

    So the government can torture people as long as it's on foreign soil? The Constitution says what the government can do. Nowhere does it say "And anything else can be done, as long as it's not on US soil"

  • Tulpa Doom||

    So the government can torture people as long as it's on foreign soil?

    As far as the constitution is concerned, yes. That would violate US law as well as several treaties we've signed, though.

  • juris imprudent||

    Please stop asserting that the rules that govern these United States apply outside of them. You haul your ass into some third-world shit-hole they will gladly disabuse of that nonsense pronto.

  • GILMORE||

    Most Americans Are Ok With Drone Strikes...

    "...of *Non-Americans*"

    FIFY

    I suspect the complacency over drone-kills would be less if they were used, say, the way SWAT teams are used arbitrarily in law enforcement.

  • sloopyinca||

    My guess is Philly police are probably looking to requisition a drone that can drop a bomb so they won't risk any officer's safety the next time they decide to drop a bomb on an apartment building

  • Lucy Steigerwald||

    Ah, MOVE, the pre-Waco nobody seems to remember except alarming lefty activists, and even then, not many.

  • sloopyinca||

    Hey, I remember. After all, how often does a local police department drop four pounds of C-4 on an apartment building?

  • GILMORE||

    Hey, it was Philly. It could be justified on grounds of Urban Renewal

  • sloopyinca||

    Seriously, though, I think the reason it's largely forgotten is because it wasn't the Feds that did it and it wasn't done on live national TV.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Unlike Waco, the people who did it were held responsible. And the courts ruled it unconstitutional.

  • sloopyinca||

    Unlike Waco, the people who did it were held responsible. And the courts ruled it unconstitutional.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, are you fucking out of your mind?

    From the Wiki:

    Aftermath
    Mayor W. Wilson Goode soon appointed an investigative commission called the PSIC or MOVE commission. It issued its report on March 6, 1986. The report denounced the actions of the city government, stating that "Dropping a bomb on an occupied row house was unconscionable."[16] No one from the city government was charged criminally.
    In a 1996 civil suit in US federal court, a jury ordered the City of Philadelphia to pay $1.5 million to a survivor and relatives of two people killed in the incident. The jury found that the city used excessive force and violated the members' constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.[13] Philadelphia was given the sobriquet "The City that Bombed Itself."[17][18]

    You must have already started drinking in anticipation of your boy Romney's performance tonight.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Fuck that. I'm watching Burn Notice on 22.1 tonight. Seeing the debate would only make my sacrifice harder to swallow.

    I volunteered for his campaign today, you know.

  • sloopyinca||

    I volunteered for his campaign today, you know.

    You mean you've been working independently from them up to this point? They might have an IP suit against you if they read your posts from the last few months. Be careful.

    /snark

  • Tulpa Doom||

    They practically jumped when I said I was originally an RP supporter in the primary.

  • Pro Libertate||

    A Michael Weston is running for a county job here in Tampa. Are you campaigning for him? I figure he's hiding out due to some trouble in Miami.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Fucking 22.1 replaced Burn Notice with that pseudomath travesty Numb3rs. WTF. Now I have to watch the friggin debate.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ah, MOVE, the pre-Waco nobody seems to remember except alarming lefty activists,

    And Black people.

    Jus' sayin'

  • Paul.||

    I remember MOVE. I believe Time (or someone relevant at the time) had a bunch of political cartoons on the matter. Pretty brutal stuff. Nowadays, they'd have been banned for "inciting violence" or insulting the Prophet Police Chief or some such nonsense.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I wonder if it's where our First Cvnt's healthiness program name came from.

  • Paul.||

    HBO did a documentary series on that:

    "If you ever want me to confess, don't rip out my finger nails, just make me eat like a vegan for a f*cking week." - Fast Food Chain CEO

    At Camden Yards, Baltimore, an off-her-game Veep forces a smile at the launch of her healthy eating initiative. Out of her earshot, the "Let's Get Moving," campaign brings yawns and stomach growls from the food manufacturing guys while Dan networks with both health advisors and the snack-food execs.
  • Virginian||

    Well, not to defend it, but I have two reasons I see Waco as worse. The first is simply the larger number of dead civilians. The second is that Waco had 51 days where apparently no one involved in the planning said "Wait wait hold on here guys. We're going to save the children by firing machine guns into the building and then charging in with tanks?"

    MOVE obviously was a heinous act, but the fact that of the hundreds of federal employees and officials who participated in Waco not one of them attempted to dissuade the government from going through with a military assault on an alleged tax evader is far more terrifying for me.

    But MOVE and Waco (and Ruby Ridge) have one thing in common: they were all "nuts" that were burned or shot without trial by the government, so the vast majority of people don't care about them.

  • Calidissident||

    Exactly. If the police here went after suspected murderers by drone striking their neighborhood, people would have a revolt. But it's okay when the CIA does it in another country

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Arresting someone in a neighborhood in Aden is a bit more difficult from arresting someone in Detroit.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If that's true then why do we have DEA F.A.S.T. teams doing just that?

  • sloopyinca||

    It's especially more difficult to arrest them in Aden when you have no arrest warrant and no charges filed. But that's beside the point of why we killed him (and another uncharged American in the murderdrone attack).

  • GILMORE||

    Tulpa Doom| 10.3.12 @ 5:51PM |#

    Arresting someone in a neighborhood in Aden is a bit more difficult from arresting someone in Detroit.

    You clearly need to visit Detroit.

  • Calidissident||

    And your point is? If these guys aren't worth apprehending, than it's not worth a drone strike that's likely to result in collateral damage

  • Calidissident||

    *"the risk of" should go between "worth" and "apprehending"

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I'm not in favor of our drone policies in the slightest, but in certain circumstances it could be justified. I think all but a tiny minority here think the drones are overused by a lot.

  • Calidissident||

    In a legitimate war? Yeah. In situations where there's no other way to take out a guy or cell that actually poses a good chance of harming Americans? Yeah. I don't think that's a significant percentage of strikes. But it is a lot easier to drone strike all those people, plus anyone else who think bad things about America, as well as their neighbors, than it is to rationally choose to send in guys to deal with the situations where there's a legitimate threat

  • BarryD||

    Most Americans Are Ok With Drone Strikes...

    "...of *Non-Americans*"

    Yup.

    And I'm going to bet that the average citizen of Uruguay would care more about one Uruguayan being killed in a war, than 100 Canadians.

    This isn't realistically a condemnation of America, specifically.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Drones quite literally foster a knock one out and 2 more will replace them environment. I'm not sure why we are still even bothering with this war.

    Because war is the health of the state.

  • John||

    America is a violent dangerous country. Our enemies would do well not to judge us by our peacenik journalists. Most people don't care how many Muslims we kill. You would think that would deter them.

  • sloopyinca||

    You make me sick with your warboner, John. You really do love to see brown people get killed in the name of America, don't you? Go die in a fucking fire, you scumbag.

  • John||

    You make me sick with your stupidity and complete refusal to face reality. Do you really think anyone gives a shit about this stuff? This poll surprises you? Do you just not read American history or are you just too stupid to understand it?

    I am even more sorry that you are so stupid you think understanding reality is making a value judgement on it. You really are incapable of thinking rationally about this topic aren't you?

    Why don't you go kill yourself out of guilt and stop stealing everyone else's oxygen?

  • sloopyinca||

    Refusal to face reality? Oh, I know it's reality albeit a very lamentable one.

    And where in American history did we do shit like this and not get roundly condemned by many of our own people?

    You think I'm stupid because I don't think rationally about the topic? What is rational, John? Reaching the same conclusion as you and no other? well if that's rational, I'll happily be on the outside looking in because I can say I don't cheer lead when we indiscriminately kill people for doing nothing more than speaking out against us...and kill their neighbors in the process.

    Sorry, but far too few of the murderdrone victims are terrorists with the actual ability to harm us in any way. The ones who do have the ability can only harm the occupying Army we have in their lands but in no way could ever get here.

    You're a warmonger, John. Embrace it and wave the bloody banner proudly, for it's people like you, Obama, Romney, McCain, GWB, Clinton (both), Cytotoxic, etc that give cover for the rest of the world to hate us. People like you are the problem in America, because you are willing to sacrifice the underpinnings of our nation for a cheap and easy "victory" against those who would wish us harm but lack the ability to really do so. You want to sacrifice our greatness to win a war we shouldn't be in in the first place. And it's fine as long as Americans aren't in harms way because you value Arab human life less than American human life.

  • John||

    And where in American history did we do shit like this and not get roundly condemned by many of our own people?

    We slaughtered the Indians and congratulated ourselves for fulfilling our manifest destiny. We bombed Germany and Japan into a smoking ruin and used two nuclear weapons and called ourselves the greatest generation for doing so.

    Those to come off the top of my head. In context with the history of warfare this drone program is nothing. Do you know anything about history? Clearly not or you would know how nasty and horrible pretty much every war the US has ever been in was and what extreme methods we use to win them. This is nothing compared to the past. We are amazingly careful about this. We don't even have a blood lust over this. Go talk to the Germans or the North Koreans about what happens when the US actually wants to kill people.

    You are just histrionic and stupid Sloopy. You don't know anything or if you do you refuse to admit it because it doesn't fit your self indulgent fantasy of being the one righteous man fighting the evil tyranny. Grow up loser.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    We bombed Germany and Japan into a smoking ruin and used two nuclear weapons and called ourselves the greatest generation for doing so.

    Very very different situations, John. Do not be silly.

    If you're saying Americans are a bunch of bloodthirsty reprobates, OK. Not sure I agree but it's hard to argue with. But it seems like you're simultaneously trying to justify that ("you think it would deter them").

  • John||

    Americans are, when they have a reason to be, blood thirsty reprobates. The history speaks for itself Tulpa.

    And yes Muslims are completely stupid to continue to wage war against us for that reason.

  • sloopyinca||

    And yes Muslims are completely stupid to continue to wage war against us for that reason.

    On their own soil too, right John? How dare those people defend their homeland against an invader from halfway around the world because a bunch of crazy fucks that happened to live there for a while went and did bad shit to our invaders. They should just meekly succumb. I'm sure you would, right? Idiot.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Collective guilt FTL. And if our reaction to the terrorists is creating more terrorists, I don't see how the original terrorists were stupid at all. We're doing more for their cause than they could possibly have done themselves.

  • sloopyinca||

    I don't know about the Indian "war", but I know there were plenty of people that raised hell about the way we waged bombing wars against the Germans and the Japanese once the documents were made public. There were even calls for war crimes trials, but since we were in charge of those trials they never happened.

    And saying "we sacrificed some of our morality to win a war" is a little different than saying "we sacrificed our morality to kill people living in huts 10k miles away because they said nasty things about us but didn't even have a gun in their hand as we killed them, their families and their neighbors."

    Both are bad, but one is unconscionably evil when compared to the other.

    Besides, I get it. You think I'm too morally consistent to live in the modern world. You think I'm an all high-n-mighty moralist because I don't wave the red, white and blue and blindly support all of our foreign policies. Hey, that's cool man. I understand you work for the state, have always worked for the state and have to support the continued expansion of the state to keep the gravy train rolling. Fortunately, I don't and am free to speak my mind when I see something morally outrageous whether it's done in the name of American greatness or some other such concept. To me the act is the act no matter whose name it's done in. Your morals vary depending on who is doing the deed.

  • Calidissident||

    The problem with John and those like him is they approach every conflict like it's WWII, where you enemies who are very well defined nation-states with borders, a capital, uniformed military, bases, supply lines, etc and can be defeated in a conventional fashion. The "War on Terror" is a completely different situation. I shouldn't have to actually explain the differences to a child let alone a grown man

  • Tulpa Doom||

    You sound like Spock in The Galileo Seven. Logic dictates an emotional outburst.

  • sloopyinca||

    I'm leaving before I get upset. My daughter has a water polo game anyway but I'll just go early to watch the boys game as well. Besides, I know I'm never gonna get through. Once you're part of the corrupt system, anything done in it's name can be justified. I might as well be talking to a brick wall with an American flag painted on it.

  • GILMORE||

    Oh boo-fucking-hoo. Make sure to wear your hairshirt to the water polo match.

  • ||

    Sixty-two percent of polled Americans approve of strikes against suspected militants in foreign countries ... The attitude Americans have about foreigners being harassed by drones is very different to the attitude we have about drones over our own heads. As Scott reported last week, slightly over a third of Americans “oppose” or “strongly oppose” police departments getting their own unmanned drones.

    Ummmm, math fail here, Mr. Feeny. That's 62% of Americans approve of strikes in foreign countries, and slightly under 67% approving of, or at least not opposing, police drones in the U.S.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement