Should the US compensate civilian casualties of drones?

[L Ron Cupboard]

The US is carrying drone strikes in a number of countries, the Yemen, Pakistan, etc. and in a number of cases there have been civilian casualties either through mistaken targeting or as collateral damage when attacking the correct target. I just watched a report on the BBC which suggested that the US is pretty much refusing to even acknowledge that it has carried out the attacks , let alone paying compensation to the families of innocent casualties.

I think the US is making a massive mistake in doing so, if this is the case. The cost of an acceptable level of compensation in a country like the Yemen would represent a minimal cost to the US. It would give the US a much better image in those countries (instead of seeming as just as much a threat to the locals as al Qaida). By not doing so they are playing into the hands of al Qaida recruiters.

What thinks NSG?

[Wind in the Willows]

Possibly.

[Placken]

I would like to point out the difficulty is as you say, that technically, the drone program is classified. Also, I believe they have some sort of tacit agreement with the Pakistani government. Anyway, it is an enormously complicated international issue.

[Khelshar]

Of course. A state should always compensate for civilian causalities, especially when the civilians are either from or in a country the state is NOT in war with, like with the drone attacks.

[Imperializt Russia]

When the war's over.

[Timna]

Absolutely. Not for PR reasons. Just for Good People reasons.

Oh and if you think the Yemenis are going to be bought off with a pack of skittles, a goat, and $500, you might have another thing coming.

[DogDoo 7]

Absolutely. Not for PR reasons. Just for Good People reasons.

Oh and if you think the Yemenis are going to be bought off with a pack of skittles, a goat, and $500, you might have another thing coming.

No, but they would probably be ok with a kilo of khat, a few camels, and a 10 year old virgin.

[Kanery]

Yes. We already spend a ton on defense, so why not be helpful with where we spend it? And besides, who would be that much of a jerk to say no?

[L Ron Cupboard]

Oh and if you think the Yemenis are going to be bought off with a pack of skittles, a goat, and $500, you might have another thing coming.

No, but it will still be a relatively small add-on to the cost of any operation.

[Jamessonia]

Absolutely. Not for PR reasons. Just for Good People reasons.

Oh and if you think the Yemenis are going to be bought off with a pack of skittles, a goat, and $500, you might have another thing coming.

No, but they would probably be ok with a kilo of khat, a few camels, and a 10 year old virgin.

As opposed to a ten year old not-virgins

[Timna]

Absolutely. Not for PR reasons. Just for Good People reasons.

Oh and if you think the Yemenis are going to be bought off with a pack of skittles, a goat, and $500, you might have another thing coming.

No, but they would probably be ok with a kilo of khat, a few camels, and a 10 year old virgin.

You're so funny!

[Timna]

Yes. We already spend a ton on defense, so why not be helpful with where we spend it? And besides, who would be that much of a jerk to say no?

The obvious counter-thing is that if you killed someone's family in the Yemen and gave them a bunch of money, they'll hop on a boat to Somalia, buy some weapons and arm their boys.

On the other hand, you do kind of have it coming at that point.

[Indira]

Certainly

[God Kefka]

The US is carrying drone strikes in a number of countries, the Yemen, Pakistan, etc. and in a number of cases there have been civilian casualties either through mistaken targeting or as collateral damage when attacking the correct target. I just watched a report on the BBC which suggested that the US is pretty much refusing to even acknowledge that it has carried out the attacks , let alone paying compensation to the families of innocent casualties.

I think the US is making a massive mistake in doing so, if this is the case. The cost of an acceptable level of compensation in a country like the Yemen would represent a minimal cost to the US. It would give the US a much better image in those countries (instead of seeming as just as much a threat to the locals as al Qaida). By not doing so they are playing into the hands of al Qaida recruiters.

What thinks NSG?

No...

No one can force America to... and it's not in America's interest to do so.

[Luveria]

You break it, you fix it.

Yes. We already spend a ton on defense, so why not be helpful with where we spend it? And besides, who would be that much of a jerk to say no?

It would really do a lot to improve the USA's international image.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes. We already spend a ton on defense, so why not be helpful with where we spend it? And besides, who would be that much of a jerk to say no?

You do realise we're talking about the US armed forces here, the people who deny that blue-on-blue attacks occur and refuse to hand over aircrews accused of killing friendly forces?
The country that spies on its own citizens, its allies' citizenry and governments and still spies on the Russian embassies in its country?

[Kronstad]

The US wouldn't be willing to. But if it would, it would be great, and it would maybe make the costs of invading nations and bombing them high enough for the US to withdraw at least some troops.

[L Ron Cupboard]

No...

No one can force America to... and it's not in America's interest to do so.

It is very much in the US's interest to do so, by not doing so they create more new recruits for al Qaida than they are killing. Assuming the aim isn't a 1984 style 'we have always been at war with al Qaida'.

[Rawania]

Do terrorist compensate the innocent victims of their actions? No. I do agree with forming a plan of compensation. It is difficult to make compensations during a time of war. Ie. How do you compensate refugees ? If a conflict has several participants then how is it decided who will compensate who. does one country or faction add up which buildings they hit and so on and so forth?. The proccess of adding dammages and finding fault takes time as well as calculating a fair compensation package.

The question yet to be asked : It is fair that if one parties weaponry hit one home and they are willing to compensate and the next hit by anothers who is not willing to compensate? Of course it is not fair and would that not cause dissention between the two victims? How does that get calculated. and do both homes get compensated by the willing compensator? Or do neither get compensation?

[Luveria]

Yes. We already spend a ton on defense, so why not be helpful with where we spend it? And besides, who would be that much of a jerk to say no?

You do realise we're talking about the US armed forces here, the people who deny that blue-on-blue attacks occur and refuse to hand over aircrews accused of killing friendly forces?
The country that spies on its own citizens, its allies' citizenry and governments and still spies on the Russian embassies in its country?

Yeah but this thread is about "should" not "would." We all know it will never happen.

The US wouldn't be willing to. But if it would, it would be great, and it would maybe make the costs of invading nations and bombing them high enough for the US to withdraw at least some troops.

It would pay itself off by how many less jihadist recruits there would be. It would take away the big, evil, imperialist, monster image the USA has for itself in the middle east.

[Imperializt Russia]

You do realise we're talking about the US armed forces here, the people who deny that blue-on-blue attacks occur and refuse to hand over aircrews accused of killing friendly forces?
The country that spies on its own citizens, its allies' citizenry and governments and still spies on the Russian embassies in its country?

Yeah but this thread is about "should" not "would." We all know it will never happen.

"Who would be that much of a jerk to say no?"
The jerk I just described.

[Timna]

It would pay itself off by how many less jihadist recruits there would be. It would take away the big, evil, imperialist, monster image the USA has for itself in the middle east.

No, no it wouldn't.

The Met Police didn't come out of the Jean Charles de Menezes thing especially well, and they paid a fair some of compensation (after first offering a piss-taking 10,000 Euros to the dead guy's family).

[Grobladonia]

Or, the US could just stop the drone strikes that seem to do more "collateral damage" as they put it than killing actual militants.

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

[Skaldia]

Yes. We already spend a ton on defense, so why not be helpful with where we spend it? And besides, who would be that much of a jerk to say no?

You do realise we're talking about the US armed forces here, the people who deny that blue-on-blue attacks occur and refuse to hand over aircrews accused of killing friendly forces?
The country that spies on its own citizens, its allies' citizenry and governments and still spies on the Russian embassies in its country?

You do realize that it isn't just America that spies on foreign embassies and it's own civilians?

[Luveria]

Yeah but this thread is about "should" not "would." We all know it will never happen.

"Who would be that much of a jerk to say no?"
The jerk I just described.

Every government behaves like that given the chance. It's still no excuse.

It would pay itself off by how many less jihadist recruits there would be. It would take away the big, evil, imperialist, monster image the USA has for itself in the middle east.

No, no it wouldn't.

The Met Police didn't come out of the Jean Charles de Menezes thing especially well, and they paid a fair some of compensation (after first offering a piss-taking 10,000 Euros to the dead guy's family).

So improving the USA's international image isn't beneficial?