Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 124 posts

Re: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says

#11

Post by jflatow »

m_eiman wrote: post #9
golergka wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This description fits almost any action that you can perform when you're at war. So, either you advocate that war courts review cases of all the enemy soldiers before aithorizing an attack, or you have to come up with a more precise definition of what is exactly wrong here. Clarification: I'm not a fan of CIA assasinations, far from it; but "execution without a trial" isn't logically justifiable complaint: we do it i…

Saying that the US is at war with various groups of people in the country side of Pakistan is a rather generous definition of the concept of war, isn't it? It's more like "the US is blowing up people who may or may not be those intended, but it's kinda hard to tell since they're doing it all by remote control".

Also, congress hasn't declared war since WWII, which is required by law.

Re: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says

#12

Post by pjc50 »

golergka wrote: post #4
cyberferret wrote: post #2

She could have approved drone strikes using smoke signals or carrier pigeons... - it all boils down to the same thing - execution of human beings without a trial...

This description fits almost any action that you can perform when you're at war. So, either you advocate that war courts review cases of all the enemy soldiers before aithorizing an attack, or you have to come up with a more precise definition of what is exactly wrong here. Clarification: I'm not a fan of CIA assasinations, far from it; but "execution without a trial" isn't logically justifiable complaint: we do it i…

enemy soldiers

There is a legal obligation in the Geneva protocols 1949 to identify who you're targeting and refrain from targeting civilians.

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc125...

"refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;"

Article 52 para 3:

"3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used."

The US has taken an extremely lax approach to this with the intelligence-based targeting. Air strikes in the course of combat are probably defensible - if you see someone running into a house carrying a weapon it becomes a military objective - but the intelligence-based targeting lacks that confirmation.

Re: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says

#14

Post by belorn »

golergka wrote: post #4
cyberferret wrote: post #2

She could have approved drone strikes using smoke signals or carrier pigeons... - it all boils down to the same thing - execution of human beings without a trial...

This description fits almost any action that you can perform when you're at war. So, either you advocate that war courts review cases of all the enemy soldiers before aithorizing an attack, or you have to come up with a more precise definition of what is exactly wrong here. Clarification: I'm not a fan of CIA assasinations, far from it; but "execution without a trial" isn't logically justifiable complaint: we do it i…

Any action? Lets look at some specifics and ask which ones should count as murder. A reasonable person might see a different degree of justification in each case.

A person wielding a gun is running and firring their weapon towards a solider. The solider shoots back and kills them.

A boat full with military weapons enters an areas which marines are defending and refuse to turn back. The marines sinks the boat.

A tank drives into a town. The Solider defending the civilians attacks the tank and the tank driver dies in an explosion.

A bomb plane that drops bombs on military facility with tanks, airfield with bombers on them, and docks with military ships.

A bomb plane that dropping bombs on a factory that produce tanks and guns, killing workers.

A bomb plane that fire bombs on housing districts to demoralize the population.

A person is driving down the road in uninhabited area, and a solider sends a remote missile.

A person is celebrating a wedding in their own house, and a soldier sends a remote missile to kill everyone in the wedding.

Re: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says

#15

Post by thaumasiotes »

golergka wrote: post #4
cyberferret wrote: post #2

She could have approved drone strikes using smoke signals or carrier pigeons... - it all boils down to the same thing - execution of human beings without a trial...

This description fits almost any action that you can perform when you're at war. So, either you advocate that war courts review cases of all the enemy soldiers before aithorizing an attack, or you have to come up with a more precise definition of what is exactly wrong here. Clarification: I'm not a fan of CIA assasinations, far from it; but "execution without a trial" isn't logically justifiable complaint: we do it i…

> This description fits almost any action that you can perform when you're at war. So, either you advocate that war courts review cases of all the enemy soldiers before aithorizing an attack, or you have to come up with a more precise definition of what is exactly wrong here.

What everyone else said. What you can do to people you're at war with isn't relevant; there is not even a pretense of being at war here.

The description doesn't even match what happens in war; execution implies sentencing, which does happen here but doesn't in war, where there would be no point.

Re: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says

#16

Post by lawnchair_larry »

littletimmy wrote: post #3

Is this against the law, or just the way things are done now? My gut instinct would be there's more examination that goes into a drone strike but after the Snowden revelations I don't know what to believe.

Read about "signature strikes". It's like Duck Typing, except with murdering.

Re: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says

#17

Post by Fuxy »

Whenever I hear something about US drone Strikes I always think how long until the other side starts getting drones developed and and easy way to mass produce them and smuggle them into the US assemble them and start launching drone strikes from within the US on US persons of interest like politicians and CIA officials.

Drone parts are getting cheaper and cheaper and easier to get it's only a matter a time someone start using them as assassination tools.

Plus they don't really need to be as big or as powerful as what the CIA uses they can be small and weak and make it up in numbers. I certainly would hate to be on the receiving end of a swarm of assassination drones.

It's a slippery slope and the more they get used the more pissed off people with the know-how and the reason to do it are created like people who have lost family members in these strikes.

Re: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says

#18

Post by Natsu »

golergka wrote: post #4
cyberferret wrote: post #2

She could have approved drone strikes using smoke signals or carrier pigeons... - it all boils down to the same thing - execution of human beings without a trial...

This description fits almost any action that you can perform when you're at war. So, either you advocate that war courts review cases of all the enemy soldiers before aithorizing an attack, or you have to come up with a more precise definition of what is exactly wrong here. Clarification: I'm not a fan of CIA assasinations, far from it; but "execution without a trial" isn't logically justifiable complaint: we do it i…

It's one thing to shoot back at people who are shooting at you, but we're talking about blowing up people in remote places who aren't currently attacking anyone or doing anything obviously bad, along with anyone near them at the time.

Re: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says

#19

Post by gonvaled »

Fuxy wrote: post #17

Whenever I hear something about US drone Strikes I always think how long until the other side starts getting drones developed and and easy way to mass produce them and smuggle them into the US assemble them and start launching drone strikes from within the US on US persons of interest like politicians and CIA officials. Drone parts are getting cheaper and cheaper and easier to get it's only a matter a time someone st…

Which of course is the only bad thing about drone strikes, right? That they could ever hit the "right guys"?

Who cares that hundreds of innocent civilians are killed, if they are not american citizens?

Disgusting, really.

EDIT, for the downvoters

you'll have to justify what in my comment you do not like. The parent is making the case that what worries him/her is that drone strikes will eventually be used to attack american targets, and by implication suggesting that the current targets are not really something to worry about.

Or he/she is at least suggesting that is not as serious, since what he really is worried about are american targets. Which, if you ask me, is a very widespread opinion, thus my comment.

Re: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says

#20

Post by spacecowboy_lon »

Fuxy wrote: post #17

Whenever I hear something about US drone Strikes I always think how long until the other side starts getting drones developed and and easy way to mass produce them and smuggle them into the US assemble them and start launching drone strikes from within the US on US persons of interest like politicians and CIA officials. Drone parts are getting cheaper and cheaper and easier to get it's only a matter a time someone st…

Well Deash and Al Queda don't seem to have much ability to get the good explosives required for that - Compare them to the PIRA and UDF during the troubles.

I am surprised that they haven't tried the sort of improvised mortars the the IRA used an almost hit the Cabinet at no 10

Post reply on HN