Drones on Trial

Published in La Nación
(Chile) on 24 May 2013
by Raúl Sohr (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Cydney Seigerman. Edited by Rachel Smith.
The use of unmanned planes, called drones, is the subject of increasing criticism. President Barack Obama, with the goal of calming public opinion both in the United States and worldwide, clarified the conditions under which these armed robotic platforms operate. At the present time, they are the preferred weapons for attacking suspected terrorists.

Obama said that the use of drones constitutes a legitimate weapon in a “just war.” It is reasonable to wonder how the campaign against the jihadist organizations in various nations can be classified as a war. In actuality, it is a campaign against small militant cores. Dangerous, yes, but there will always be groups that resort to terrorism, and that does not permit talk about war and all that comes along with it. Obama himself admitted in his speech that the United States cannot allow a “perpetual” war, be it one with drone attacks or Special Forces operations. In the end, it is a “war” that has already been going on for 12 years since its beginning after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The president warned that to persist in perpetuating the war would be counterproductive.

The counterproductive aspect is that these attacks launched at sovereign countries provoke much animosity, as in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The deaths of civilians in the course of the attacks has unleashed large anti-American movements. The presence of drones, even those simply for observation, causes much anxiety in the regions in which they operate. In short, killing suspected enemies without a proper trial, even with the purpose of preventing a suspected attack, is beyond human rights. It is enough to consider the number of misidentifications that the standard courts make in everyday circumstances. Where does the intelligence guiding the attacks come from? In many cases, it is not uncommon for paid agents or informants to have their own agents. The margin of error is enormous. Obama did not declare in vain that he would not allow drone use in his country.

There were four criteria mentioned regarding the regulations that will govern the use of these weapons in the future. One, having the “near certainty” that the target is present and that the attack will not result in civilian injury or death. Two, arrest is not possible. Three, the authorities of the country in question are not able or are not ready to confront the threat. Four, no other alternatives exist. In any case, drone attacks have decreased in recent times. However, as Obama noted, drones will continue to be used. From Washington’s perspective, the drone is the ideal weapon, permitting attacks on remote enemies who operate in inaccessible regions and most importantly, do not run the risk of losses that bring a high political cost.


El empleo de aviones no tripulados, los llamados drones, son objeto de una creciente crítica. El Presidente Barack Obama, con el propósito de tranquilizar a la opinión pública estadounidense e internacional, aclaró las condiciones bajo las cuales operaran estas plataformas robóticas armadas que, hoy por hoy, son los instrumentos predilectos para atacar a presuntos terroristas.

Obama dijo que el empleo de drones constituía un arma legítima en “una guerra justa”. Cabe preguntarse cuál guerra pues difícilmente la campaña contra las organizaciones yihadistas , en diversos países, puede catalogarse como una guerra. En rigor es una campaña contra núcleos militantes de poco peso. Peligrosos sí, pero siempre habrán grupos que recurran al método terrorista y ello no permite hablar de guerra y todo lo que ella conlleva. El propio Obama admitió en su alocución que Estados Unidos no puede permanecer “en una guerra perpetua”, ya sea a través de ataques con drones u operaciones de fuerzas especiales. Al fin y al cabo es una “guerra” que ya lleva 12 años y que comenzó con los atentados del 11-S-2001. El mandatario advirtió que persistir en eternizar la “guerra” sería “contraproducente”.

Lo contraproducente son ataques lanzados sobre países soberanos donde provocan gran animosidad, como en Pakistán y Afganistán. La muerte de civiles en el curso de las incursiones ha desatado grandes movilizaciones anti norteamericanas. La presencia de los drones, incluso los de mera observación, causa una ansiedad mayor en las regiones en las que operan. En definitiva dar muerte a presuntos enemigos, que no han sido juzgados, con el propósito de prevenir un sospechado ataque está fuera del derecho humanitario. Basta con considerar la cantidad de identificaciones erróneas cometidas, en forma cotidiana, por la justicia ordinaria. ¿De dónde proviene la inteligencia que guía los ataques? En muchos casos de agentes e informantes pagados que no es inusual que tengan sus propias agendas. El margen de error es enorme. No en vano Obama aclaró que no permitiría el empleo de drones sobre su país.

En cuanto a las normas que regirán el empleo de estas armas en el futuro señaló cuatro criterios. Uno, tener la “casi certeza” que el blanco está presente y que civiles no resultarán heridos o muertos. Dos, la captura no es posible. Tres, las autoridades del país en cuestión no pueden o no están dispuestas a enfrentar la amenaza. Cuatro, no hay ninguna otra alternativa disponible. En todo caso los ataques con drones han disminuido en el último tiempo. Pero como lo señaló Obama seguirán prestando servicio. Desde la perspectiva de Washington es el arma ideal que permite golpear a enemigos remotos, que operan en territorios inaccesibles y, lo más importante, sin exponerse a pérdidas propias que conllevan un alto costo político.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Japan: Expectations for New Pope To Mend Rifts among American People

OPD: 16 May 2025, edited by Helaine Schweitzer

Russia: Will Trump Investigate Harris? Political Analyst Responds*

Austria: Deterrence, but Not for Everyone

Canada: Scorning Trump’s Golden Dome Would Be a Mistake

Australia: Another White House Ambush Sends a Message to World Leaders Entering Donald Trump’s Den

Topics

Canada: Scorning Trump’s Golden Dome Would Be a Mistake

Australia: Which Conflicts of Interest? Trump Doubles Down on Crypto

Russia: Will Trump Investigate Harris? Political Analyst Responds*

Germany: Ukraine War: Cease-fire Still Out of Reach

Japan: Expectations for New Pope To Mend Rifts among American People

OPD: 16 May 2025, edited by Helaine Schweitzer

Related Articles

Chile: (Fictional) Female US Presidents We Remember

China: There Should Be No More Monroe Doctrine in the Americas

Chile : An Indicted Former President

U.K.: The Guardian View on the Other 9/11: Pinochet’s Dictatorship Casts a Lengthening Shadow

Pakistan: Killing Democracy