rationalskepticism.org

willhud9 wrote:I would like

specific sources

please HomerJay of these credible "lies" the US Military has "time and time again" been known to tell. Please, specific links and credible sources. Thanks

Lol, the lies ain't credible but I know what you mean.

Before we get down to specifics, the OP made reference to high altitude hits and Weaver mentioned 'aerial strikes' so I would include stuff that's happened in Afghanistan from non-drone strikes, google afghan wedding party and fuel tanker strike. On general military credibility look up My Lai.

Regarding the drones and the quality of information try this Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston (he's a Law Professor at New York University School of Law with over 20 years experience working for the UN, probably a pinko liberal but I don't know). He reported in 2010 but had been making his thoughts known a year before, so 2 years ago now.

Couple of highlights:

72. It is important to note that if a targeted killing violates IHL (by, for example,
targeting civilians who were not “directly participating in hostilities”), then regardless of
who conducts it – intelligence personnel or State armed forces – the author, as well as those
who authorized it, can be prosecuted for war crimes.

(my emphasis, remember this bit, you'll need it later, IHL= rules of war)

81. Drones’ proponents argue that since drones have greater surveillance capability and afford greater precision than other weapons, they can better prevent collateral civilian casualties and injuries. This may well be true to an extent, but it presents an incomplete picture. The precision, accuracy and legality of a drone strike depend on the human intelligence upon which the targeting decision is based.

(my emphasis, remember this bit, you'll need it later)

H. The requirements of transparency and accountability
87. The failure of States to comply with their human rights law and IHL obligations to provide transparency and accountability for targeted killings is a matter of deep concern. To date, no State has disclosed the full legal basis for targeted killings, including its interpretation of the legal issues discussed above. Nor has any State disclosed the procedural and other safeguards in place to ensure that killings are lawful and justified, and the accountability mechanisms that ensure wrongful killings are investigated, prosecuted and punished. The refusal by States who conduct targeted killings to provide transparency
about their policies violates the international legal framework that limits the unlawful use of lethal force against individuals.(149)
88. Transparency is required by both IHL(150) and human rights law.(151) A lack of
disclosure gives States a virtual and impermissible license to kill.

My emphasis, which demonstrates that Weaver's assertion that:

Weaver wrote:You have no meaningful way to compare the two classes - valid enemy vs innocent civilian - because that information simply isn't available to you - nor should it be.

is in contravention of both International Humanitarian Law (rules of war) and human rights law, according to this US Professor of Law and UN Special Rapporteur.

I hope this provides some useful context before we look at a specific relevant case but this is an information rich area and there is a lot of stuff out there about the US military deliberately lying about civilian casualties, I don't want to get bogged down in a mass of cases.