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

Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 100 posts

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#81

Post by Rusky »

pjmlp wrote: post #16
bd_at_rivenhill wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Civilian" targets can become valid military targets. For example, if an enemy force forms a line of resistance within an urban or suburban area, then it is legitimate to attack and destroy that area. A civilian area that is not occupied by an enemy force is not a legitimate target, and attacking it constitutes a war crime.

I always found that type of argumentation interesting, war is a crime.

Sure, but "war crime" is a phrase with a particular history and usage that means something more specific. Even opposing sides in war often agree on some boundaries.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#82

Post by pessimizer »

lukifer wrote: post #23
seren wrote: post #2

What I find really odd is how similar a drone strike is to a terrorist attack. A military convoy is being attacked by a remotely controlled IED, you can retaliate by sending a drone to blow up some pre-defined target. Maybe it is a fitting weapon for the twenty-first century, to put back some symmetry in asymmetric wars. The next logical step is the use of drones to perform terrorist attacks. It is easy to envision a…

I wish I could remember who made this comparison (I'm guessing it was Jeremy Scahill?), but I agree with the idea that the primary hallmark of terrorism is the feeling of utter powerlessness to respond or defend yourself, making drone warfare just as terrorizing as a suicide bomber. I remember when Maryland residents lived in constant fear of going outside for a few weeks in 2002, due to a pair of uncaught snipers [1…

To be really clear about the definition of terrorism from when anarchists were proud to be called terrorists: "terrorism" is an action during a conflict that is meant to defeat the opposition by creating fear, rather than by removing its physical ability to resist.

Example: If a street gang occupies your neighborhood, you and your neighbors could remove them by 1) taking up arms and confronting them until they take enough casualties that they they have to retreat or surrender, or 2) kidnapping a straggler once every week or so, skinning him alive, recording it on videotape, and hanging him from a lamppost with the videotape around his neck.

1) is an attack on the ability to fight, 2) is an attack on the will to fight.

So IMO Scahill is getting to the essence of it in your reference here.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#83

Post by pessimizer »

davidf18 wrote: post #55
lukifer wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could remember who made this comparison (I'm guessing it was Jeremy Scahill?), but I agree with the idea that the primary hallmark of terrorism is the feeling of utter powerlessness to respond or defend yourself, making drone warfare just as terrorizing as a suicide bomber. I remember when Maryland residents lived in constant fear of going outside for a few weeks in 2002, due to a pair of uncaught snipers [1…

The primary hallmark of terrorism is targeting civilians (as opposed to military or infrastructure targets such as trains or refineries or factories). If a drone is used to attack a factory or a military target that is not terrorism. If a drone is intentionally used to attack a civilian, non-infrastructure target (eg, a wedding) then that is terrorism.

This is a very modern definition. Most historical terrorism has been committed against property, rather than civilians.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#84

Post by fyolnish »

streptomycin wrote: post #60
davidf18 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if the Russian's are targeting terrorists (those people who attack civilians) then we should applaud their efforts for saving civilian lives.

Even if you make the assumptions that killing terrorists is always a good thing, that it is possible to accurately identify terrorists, that it is possible to kill them without collateral damage, etc... How do you know if they are honest about their intentions? Just take Putin's word for it?

If the US can do it, why not Russia?

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#85

Post by DominikR »

streptomycin wrote: post #42

The report raised warnings that other countries might adopt the same rationale as the United States has for carrying out lethal strikes outside of declared war zones. Using an example of a current crisis, it said that Russia could use armed drones in Ukraine under the justification that it was killing anti-Russian terrorists and then refuse to disclose the intelligence that served as the basis for the strike. “In suc…

Targeted killings are wrong, but Russia isn't doing this anyway.

They still send in troops/police that try to disarm suspects, because the Russian population in some regions would feel oppressed if they started assassinating suspects without a trial and they don't need a new Chechnya.

And outside of Russia they intervene much less militarily than the US is doing right now. (compared to the US, Russia's interventions are almost nonexistent)

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#86

Post by taniraja »

vidarh wrote: post #75
davidf18 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrorists are people who target civilians, regardless of which country they are in.

So police are terrorists?

Not sure about Police but according to this the IDF would be terrorists by targeting Palestinian children.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#87

Post by eevilspock »

rational-future wrote: post #35
eevilspock wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good time to listen to or reread Eisenhower's 1961 speech warning of the Military-Industrial Complex. "Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast…

Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex in the speech draft. Pretty much `they` have won and we - the 99% - have lost. Queue the downvotes ;)

Few here work for the Military Industrial Complex, so you ought not expect many downvotes.

But many if not a majority do work for the Advertising Content-Industrial Complex, and any critique of said complex does bring on the downvotes[1][2]. Occasionally, under articles that attract ACIC dissenters, such critique will garner support[3].

--

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7837683

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7733713

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7485773

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#88

Post by davidf18 »

taniraja wrote: post #86
vidarh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So police are terrorists?

Not sure about Police but according to this the IDF would be terrorists by targeting Palestinian children.

The IDF does not target children. Please cite your references before making such a statement.

OTOH, during Operation Cast Lead (I was in Israel for that entire 3 week war) Hamas did deliberately use children as human shields: http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=1304

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#89

Post by WorldWideWayne »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #80
jessaustin wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really a cop-out to blame the voters. We're never going to be as well-informed, persuasive, or powerful as a five-star general who is also a re-elected President. ( No one will ever be that well-informed, persuasive, or powerful.) Eisenhower could have ordered projects, divisions, and fleets mothballed and sent the money back to the Treasury, and the media couldn't have incited any riots about it. Do you think O…

> We're never going to be as well-informed, Cries of "we're too stupid, save us from ourselves!" are unlikely to ever be answered with acceptable solutions. > or powerful as a five-star general who You have all the power in the world. You don't seem to know it. Maybe that's the problem. > Eisenhower could have ordered projects, divisions, and fleets mothballed No, Congress could have done that. Not Ike. He might have…

> Cries of "we're too stupid..."

Nobody claimed stupidity. Well-informedness is a matter of security clearance.

> You have all the power in the world. blah, blah, blah

Why hide behind ambiguous vitriol? If you actually have a point make it.

> Eisenhower could have ordered projects, divisions, and fleets mothballed.

Executive orders give the POTUS extraordinary powers during war-time and times of national emergency. Entire wars have been fought upon executive order. Do you want to discuss specifics or just continue being nasty to people you're talking to? See http://www.veteranstoday.com/2009/01/29/obama-could-issue-an...

> You're the pig.

Classy. What particular item of conversation makes you say that to the person you're responding to? I didn't see anything that could have provoked that.

Re: Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End

#90

Post by dragonwriter »

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #89
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We're never going to be as well-informed, Cries of "we're too stupid, save us from ourselves!" are unlikely to ever be answered with acceptable solutions. > or powerful as a five-star general who You have all the power in the world. You don't seem to know it. Maybe that's the problem. > Eisenhower could have ordered projects, divisions, and fleets mothballed No, Congress could have done that. Not Ike. He might have…

> Cries of "we're too stupid..." Nobody claimed stupidity. Well-informedness is a matter of security clearance. > You have all the power in the world. blah, blah, blah Why hide behind ambiguous vitriol? If you actually have a point make it. > Eisenhower could have ordered projects, divisions, and fleets mothballed. Executive orders give the POTUS extraordinary powers during war-time and times of national emergency. E…

> Executive orders give the POTUS extraordinary powers during war-time and times of national emergency.

Executive orders do not give POTUS powers, they are means by which POTUS exercises power the office already possesses.

Post reply on HN