Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says

Post by golergka » Mon, Jun 13, 2016, 10:27 AM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #18

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…

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.

Post by Retric » Mon, Jun 13, 2016, 10:34 AM UTC

jflatow wrote: post #11

m_eiman wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by richmarr » Mon, Jun 13, 2016, 10:38 AM UTC

rottyguy wrote: post #34

gonvaled wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 am…

Black and white decisions are a luxury that not all people are afforded. Yes it's terrible that innocent lives are lost but it's at least equally terrible, many would argue even more so, that innocent lives of your clan are lost. For many decisions outside the obvious, it is often the case that you're selecting from a pool of bad choices.

Post by chopin » Mon, Jun 13, 2016, 10:47 AM UTC

factorialboy wrote: post #46

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...

Question is are you in a state of war? Are these considered casualties of war? If yes, then execution without trial is a given.

Post by ionised » Mon, Jun 13, 2016, 10:50 AM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #23

pjc50 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

The very words you quote authorise "incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects" as long as it's not "excessive", and the treating of a "place of worship, a house or other dwelling or school" as a military target as long as you're fairly sure it's being used for military purposes. Obviously you can argue about what is "excessive" and what is a "case of doubt" but whoever wrote th…