Give me a break. While our law seems to define it in an overly broad way, most people do not think of a small missile as a WMD. In practical effect, they do not kill in mass.
Are US drone strikes in Pakistan a war crime?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
I disagree. On 9/11, as I understand it, the use of missiles against aircraft was seriously considered, though at that point it was already too late. A missile fired from a fighter and a missile fired from a drone are equivalent if we want to call the latter a WMD.
What is harder to envision is our letting a foreign government do it, but that is because we are perfectly capable ourselves. If we had a dysfunctional military, that would be a different story.
We dropped plenty of WMDs on our territory legally.
They should make them practice on their families. Its so much easier to sacrifice other people's families, the core test of your principles should be the willingness to sacrifice your own.
Do you think a POTUS would give the order to shoot down a plane if his wife and daughters were on it? If not, are they of greater value than any other American?
His wife and daughters would not be on a domestic flight.
You are confused. An "extrajudicial killing" as such is not a war crime - the normal laws and customs of war involve the deliberate killing of large numbers of enemy soldiers, without trial or other judicial intervention. If "extrajudicial killing" is a war crime, then every act of war - ever - was a war crime. Or, more to the point, all war is crime.
Which is fine if that's what you want to propose, but few people are likely to support you in this, and it would obviate considerations like "war crime" and "extrajudicial killing."
The term "extrajudicial" implies an expectation that a formal justice system should have been involved - i.e., it does not apply to a war. These can constitute crimes against humanity, or just regular crimes, or terrorism, or all three, but not war crimes, usually, since there is no expectation of an impartial trial before an enemy soldier kills you in battle.
The question of whether drone strikes are war crimes has nothing to do with "extrajudiciality" or permission of the Pakistani government - those aspects just make them acts of war, not necessarily crimes. To figure out if it's a war crime, you need to determine if the realistically expected gains of the operations justify the realistically expected costs of the operations - just as the article you posted in the OP discusses. The other considerations - Pakistani collusion and extrajudiciality - are red herrings.
quad, please stop making sense. Don't you know we should leave these peaceful people alone so that they can plot our destruction without the unnecessary distractions of getting shot at?
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
Let's assume they were flying commercial (and perhaps there is the reason we don't allow that). The POTUS might well not allow the missile to be fired, that's true...and the reason is that he'd be emotionally compromised. Are they more important than any other American? To him, they clearly are, but I draw the opposite conclusion from you. You seem to think that he "correctly" values them, and "undervalues" all the people he does not know. I think he's been emotionally compromised (understandably) and that if he could think rationally he would be more likely to fire on them.
Ideally, in that situation, the President would resign, and hand the decision whether or not to fire over to the Vice President. There was a West Wing story arc about just that, and the President stepped aside. It might have been unrealistic given the emotions involved, but it is the ideal.
Remember, the decision is not "kill people or not." The decision is "kill these people now, or run a very high risk of many more people being killed, when the terrorists finally attack." You consider shooting down the plane not because you hate the people on the plane, but because you want to protect all the other victims whose lives the terrorists you are targeting would take.
This and that
(chortle!)
I find it ironic that you quote the law and then turn around to reject it when it is no longer convenient for your argument.
Let me know which standard you prefer, and when. It's not entirely arbitrary, I know, so I can probably guess according to the, "Whichever is most convenient to you," standard, but it would still be helpful if you let us know in advance. You know ... clears up any misunderstandings before they happen.
I would only ask that you note the proposition to which I was responding:
Spidergoat said:
(chortle!)
I find it ironic that you quote the law and then turn around to reject it when it is no longer convenient for your argument.
Let me know which standard you prefer, and when. It's not entirely arbitrary, I know, so I can probably guess according to the, "Whichever is most convenient to you," standard, but it would still be helpful if you let us know in advance. You know ... clears up any misunderstandings before they happen.
• • •
Pandaemoni said:
I would only ask that you note the proposition to which I was responding:
"What does US law say about allowing foreign agents to use weapons of mass destruction against Americans?" (Boldface accent added)
I quoted the law with respect to what is a war crime. A legal attack on one of our enemies, even if it happens to kill innocent people is not a war crime. Calling a missile a WMD does not make such attacks a war crime.
Without the legal sanction of the Pakistani government [which they cannot provide], all American attacks in Pakistan are illegal acts of terrorism
And even with the sanction of the puppets in Kabul, shooting kids under 18 execution style in night time raids, is also a war crime.
This is exactly what Sri Lanka is being charged with
Moderator warning: some viewers may find the following image disturbing.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/resize/i...798_sri_lanka_execution_090826_b_channel4.jpg
And even with the sanction of the puppets in Kabul, shooting kids under 18 execution style in night time raids, is also a war crime.
This is exactly what Sri Lanka is being charged with
Moderator warning: some viewers may find the following image disturbing.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/resize/i...798_sri_lanka_execution_090826_b_channel4.jpg
I am wondering if the administration went through the proper hoops according to US law. Back in the Vietnam war it was a no-no when the US began bombing in Laos and Cambodia and so these bombing runs were hidden. I do not know what laws apply and how, but I assume presidents must go through some process to begin bombing in a new country.
Of course their has been a slippery slope over the decades according more and more power to presidents and their admins, so perhaps this is all moot.
seems to me obama said he would go into pakistan if they shot at troops in afganistan and ran back to pakistan...border or not.
Yeah and he won with popular support.
So are the American people culpable for the execution of school children by US Special Forces?
It seems that Obama has been worse for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan than Bush
What does that say about the future?
So are the American people culpable for the execution of school children by US Special Forces?
It seems that Obama has been worse for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan than Bush
What does that say about the future?
Guilty! Guilty, guilty, guilty!
I think the fact that people are more vociferous in and attentive to Tea Party protests than anti-war demonstrations says quite a lot about the culpability of the American people. Or, at least, our priorities.
I think the fact that people are more vociferous in and attentive to Tea Party protests than anti-war demonstrations says quite a lot about the culpability of the American people. Or, at least, our priorities.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Self defense is an act of war. Of course if you're attacked you have to immediately launch a defense and worry about the legal niceties later. But we've had plenty of time to worry about the legal niceties and we haven't done so. The laws of the United States require a declaration of war by Congress before our forces may be committed to fight a war, and no such declaration has been issued. Just as it was not issued against Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or Iraq (the second time). All of these undeclared wars were unconstitutional and the presidents who prosecuted them should have been impeached.
Obama had the misfortune to enter the White House when an illegal war was already underway. We understood that this was a complex situation he could not reasonably have resolved immediately. We've given him a year to end this illegal war, and instead of doing so he has now promised to send more American troops. If he would simply ask Congress to declare war first, then he would be acting legally. But he did not. So he, too, is violating the Constitution and he, too, should be impeached.
I agree. The crime is that we're there at all.
This is why we should be electing governments that strive to end war, not ones that argue over the best ways to fight wars.
The term "weapons of mass destruction" was first used in 1937 to describe the wanton, large-scale bombing of a city in the Spanish Civil War by a large squadron of aircraft using a huge number of weapons. Since then, due to so-called "advances" in the technology of war, it has been refocused to mean a single weapon capable of killing at least thousands, and especially tens of thousands of people. For a while it was restricted to nuclear weapons. Today it also includes chemical and biological weapons, largely the result of George Bush's fraudulent accusation against Saddam Hussein, who could not possibly have had nuclear weapons, as a pretext for overthrowing his government.
A drone that can kill a house full of people is not a weapon of mass destruction.
Please watch your language. Misuse of words is a common tactic governments use to inflame emotions. There's no reason we can't behave better than they do.
Terrorism is extortion: the deliberate targeting of civilians and their infrastructure in order to coerce them into supporting a policy so unpopular that there is no other way to gain that support. The drone attacks in Pakistan carefully target identified terrorists, and have been rather successful. The collateral damage--killing civilians who fraternize with people even WE know are terrorists!--may or may not be a war crime, but it is not terrorism.
Like whom? Which terrorists are they targeting? Who have these terrorists terrorised?
Of the 700 people killed so far, how many were terrorists? How many were their supporters?
Of the ten Afghan schoolchildren executed by US Special Forces, how many were terrorists, how many their supporters?
I think you may want to think about who the terrorist is here
Or listen to this US soldier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The Taliban and Al Qaeda are terrorist organizations because terrorism (extortion using violence of military or paramilitary scope) is one of their stock tools. The people that the U.S. government targets in Pakistan are leaders of these organizations: terrorists by definition.
If you're saying that the attacks go awry and kill the wrong people, you're simply saying that war is a sloppy business that kills far too many innocents. Duh.
Regardless of their motivation, regardless of the skill or incompetence involved in their execution, I've already gone on record saying that the U.S. actions in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal. The president who orders them should be impeached for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution, now that so much time has passed that he can't conveniently blame them on the mess left behind by his predecessor.
I say this in my own country, attempting to persuade the people who elect our leaders. This, hopefully, has more impact on our ability to change things than saying it to someone who lives in India. My purpose in letting you overhear these statements is to remind you that the American people are not a monolithic culture and there is considerable active dissent among us. We thought we'd scored a huge victory in electing Obama, and I'm still confident that the world is better off than it would be if McCain were in the White House, even though as a registered Libertarian I voted for Bob Barr, who would have brought all the troops home as fast as the planes and ships could carry them.
Until someone convinces me otherwise, I will label as a terrorist supporter anyone who voluntarily associates with someone well known as a terrorist leader, with the obvious exception of priests, physicians, and others bound by oath. As for family members, that's a tough decision, but in practice people are forced by circumstances to share the responsibility for the evil done by their family members, and there's no good way to prevent it. Except to end war, of course.
If you're saying that they were killed by mistake, the euphemisms of "friendly fire" and "collateral damage" apply. The rules of war require that such deaths be minimized. It's not statistically valid to look at a single incident; what is the overall ratio of collateral damage in these attacks?
But if you're saying they were killed deliberately because our troops regarded them as enemies, then it's a war crime: wanton killing of civilians.
And if you're saying they were killed to send a message to their families to stop supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, then it's terrorism: extortion.
As a pacifist and a libertarian I'm hardly going to defend the illegal, incompetent and/or simply evil actions of my government and its employees, particularly when they cause death to innocents or any other grievous injustice. I am only trying to do my job as the Linguistics Moderator, and moderate the use of terminology, for the sake of clarity in this potentially volatile discussion. So long as everyone uses words like "terrorism" and "war crimes" properly, it's up to you to argue over who's doing what.
I think your missing the point of terrorism. its not about killing its about fear. the current definition of terrorism focusing on violence is highly political in nature in my opinion