On page 5, the report asserts that these visual capabilities enable operators to consult with military lawyers “to help determine whether targets are legitimate.” This suggests that the authors have no real battlefield experience in which split-second decisions must be made, or are simply inventing claims.I wonder if HRW wants all soldiers in a battlefield to be equipped with cell phones to call their lawyers before each time they pull the trigger?
It is also interesting to contrast HRW's claims of the incredible precision of drones and their optics with the British professor's assertions that drones cause more civilian deaths that I posted about yesterday.
NGO Monitor also noted the "even-handedness" of HRW releasing a report today calling Hamas rocket attacks war crimes. Outside of the huge "duh!" factor, NGO Monitor notes:
While containing no new information, this report might have had an impact if HRW published it six months ago. The fact that it is only now on their agenda exposes their biased priorities. The timing might indicate HRW's effort to use this report to divert attention from the Saudi fundraising controversy, and as a fig leaf to cover the disproportionate focus on Israel.
On the substance, HRW failed to indict Hamas for turning the entire Gaza population into one massive human shield, and ‘researchers’ need to explain why they did not investigate the sources of the ‘smuggled’ rockets or to mention Iran. In contrast, when condemning Israel on a very thin factual foundation, HRW officials consistently criticize the American security relationship and arms transfers”.