Are US drone strikes in Pakistan a war crime?

[Fraggle Rocker]

Who would he declare war on? That's the problem with the whole idea of a "war on terror".

I understand. The whole concept of using a military force to combat an enemy whose force is only barely of military scope long enough to mount one attack, and the rest of the time is of paramilitary scope at best, is ridiculous. It's the old metaphor of using a hand grenade to kill a spider.

Espionage seems like a far better tactic for fighting terrorism. All these experts who have been quoted at length here have some very deep insights into the psychology of terrorists. You'd think a government with five million employees could figure out a way to infiltrate them and use psychology to distract, reform or defeat them.

Just the single revelation from interviews with reformed terrorists, that the overwhelming majority of them came home because their mothers wanted them to, says a lot. Let's infiltrate the terrorist cells and give them and their Moms all iPhones!

Personally, I think it is wrong to characterise the fight against Al Qaeda as a war at all. The fight against the Taliban is closer to being a war, but the Taliban represents no State so it's still problematic.

Indeed. Besides, as comedians (some of the world's brightest people) point out all the time: Every time we declare war on something, we get more of it. Just look at poverty and drugs!

And if these conflicts are not regarded as wars, the next question is: how far does the President's authority to authorise such actions extend? My impression is that the general feeling in the US is that the President has a wide discretion in such things.

Fortunately, the U.S. has a Constitution and everybody--the President, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the people themselves--is bound by it. The President must do only what the Constitution empowers him to do, not what we tell him to do in our e-mails.

Unfortunately the President, Congress and the Supreme Court have been using the Constitution for toilet paper since 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt came into power and was looking for something to wipe his butt with as he began turning our country into a socialist worker's paradise.

This is another example of silly trolling by SAM that diminishes her argument. It's quite deliberate.

I prefer to regard it as a linguistic error, which can be corrected.

The problem for SAM is that your "carefully identified terrorist" is not a terrorist at all in her eyes. She doesn't trust the US government's labelling of these targets as terrorists. Probably, in her increasingly radicalised state of mind, she regards anybody fighting the US as a freedom fighter.

I understand. I'm not arguing that. I'm just assuring her that our drones really are trying to kill the people our government has identified as terrorists, not the schoolchildren next door.

If she objects to the killing of innocents then she has a problem with the accuracy of our government's intelligence, its targeting software, and perhaps also with its tolerance levels for collateral damage. But if she objects to the killing of people our government identifies as terrorists, then she objects to violence as an acceptable way to resolve disputes, and I have absolutely no disagreement with her.

So long as she tries just as hard to pacify the strategy of her people, the Muslims, as I try to pacify the strategy of my people, the Americans.

Deal?

 

[iceaura]

Yes, the Bush administration pushed the WMD button, but then again the WHOLE WORLD was thinking the same damn thing.

In accordance with my role here: That has been debunked so many times, including to your face, that it is now a lie, and no longer merely ignorant - even from someone confined to the US media bubble for their info.

I'm just assuring her that our drones really are trying to kill the people our government has identified as terrorists, not the schoolchildren next door.

In the past, when the US government has undertaken these kinds of assassination operations using the CIA and mercenaries and local paramilitaries, with access to military resources and under the umbrella of some military endeavor or another, the targeting was not - how do we say this - quite as clean as that description implies.

If drug dealers that have set themselves up as Karzai's brother's rivals end up being major targets of Blackwater, are they "innocent" or are they "terrorists"?

 

[GeoffP]

By the way, TW. Ever think of trying to make PEACE with these people? Lol.

No, of course not. That's IMPOSSIBLE as they are sworn to eradicate us from the face of the earth.

EVEN THEIR OWN QURAN DEMANDS IT!! IT'S US OR THEM!!!!

So explain to me once more why 5-8 million muslims are not adhereing to their SWORN DUTY.

You raise some good - and correct - points here. But you haven't examined the legalities of the suppression of religious minorities in Islamic countries. I agree with much of what you say, but at the same time one can't ignore the concept of legalized oppression; the codex of Islamic law itself. It's a scary concept.

 

[pywakit]

You raise some good - and correct - points here. But you haven't examined the legalities of the suppression of religious minorities in Islamic countries. I agree with much of what you say, but at the same time one can't ignore the concept of legalized oppression; the codex of Islamic law itself. It's a scary concept.

In general, all religions are based on irrational thought processes. It only makes sense ( in a perverse sort of logic ) that these same irrational people would strive to produce laws in accordance with their beliefs ( which by nature are exclusionary, and arbitrary ) in an attempt to force others to adhere to the aforementioned irrational beliefs.

Ignorant, indoctrinated, conditioned people are easily whipped into a religious frenzy, which suppresses even further, rational, logical thought processes. It sickens me to the core, what stupid people will do in accordance with their belief systems, and the islamic legalized suppression of women's rights is just another example.

If I had just one wish that could be granted, I would wish for the end of ignorance. It would not make the world free from the horrors that humans inflict upon each other, but there is no question the world ( containing all it's inhabitants ) would be a much better place to exist.

Whoever said "ignorance is bliss" was most certainly ignorant.

 

[kororoti]

Apparently war crimes also cover extra-judicial executions, which these strikes fall under - at least based on the fact that Sri Lanka is being accused of war crimes for extra judicial killings



http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iUaMrNjdCeSmf_4__CYrSIe26SBg

The goal of an execution is punishment, not self defense. Self defense is concerned with prevention. For example: if someone murdered your child, and you went and killed them in retaliation, that would not be considered self defense. In the USA, you might still be acquitted because of jury sympathy, but it still would not be self defense.

So, executions are an entirely separate matter. Besides: nobody doubts that the USA would be happy to arrest and imprison (rather than execute) the terrorists we've been killing if the opportunity were to present itself. It just doesn't present itself very often.

 

[GeoffP]

In general, all religions are based on irrational thought processes. It only makes sense ( in a perverse sort of logic ) that these same irrational people would strive to produce laws in accordance with their beliefs ( which by nature are exclusionary, and arbitrary ) in an attempt to force others to adhere to the aforementioned irrational beliefs.

Ignorant, indoctrinated, conditioned people are easily whipped into a religious frenzy, which suppresses even further, rational, logical thought processes. It sickens me to the core, what stupid people will do in accordance with their belief systems, and the islamic legalized suppression of women's rights is just another example.

If I had just one wish that could be granted, I would wish for the end of ignorance. It would not make the world free from the horrors that humans inflict upon each other, but there is no question the world ( containing all it's inhabitants ) would be a much better place to exist.

Whoever said "ignorance is bliss" was most certainly ignorant.

Hear hear.

 

[quadraphonics]

In general, all religions are based on irrational thought processes.

Don't be silly. Religions serve big, obvious, rational social needs. That's why they've proliferated throughout human history. Belief systems based on craziness don't tend too last long, and they certainly don't proliferate all over the world, repeatedly arise independently, etc.

If you mean that the theology involved is irrational, you're closer to the mark. But so what? Religion is not "based on" theology; it's based on sociopolitical utility. The associated theology is a necessary product of the religion, not its basis.

 

[pywakit]

Don't be silly. Religions serve big, obvious, rational social needs. That's why they've proliferated throughout human history. Belief systems based on craziness don't tend too last long, and they certainly don't proliferate all over the world, repeatedly arise independently, etc.

If you mean that the theology involved is irrational, you're closer to the mark. But so what? Religion is not "based on" theology; it's based on sociopolitical utility. The associated theology is a necessary product of the religion, not its basis.

Perhaps I failed to make myself clear. I never said religions were not 'useful'. Obviously, they are. They keep masses in line, provide for communal structures that ( in a perverse way ) assist in the survival of any given group of people.

But ALL religions ... with out exception ... have an irrational belief as their foundation. Religion is a tool used by the few to control the many. It has always been this way.

Religions suppress knowledge. Religions create enemies. Religions indoctrinate. Condition. Exclude. Provide severe punishments for those who stray, or question, or criticize.

All of the 'good' things that religions do could be done just as well, if not better with out them. If humans spent their time learning about the real world ... the real universe ... instead of the imaginary one religions promote, humanity would have already had colonies on the moon, and mars.

Religions do much more harm than good, because they are based on INSANITY, versus reality. What possible good can come in the long run from promoting insanity as reality?

Just because insanity has prevailed for thousands of years does not make it valid, or correct. OR REAL.

It took the catholic church 350 years to 'apologise' to the descendants of Galileo for the 'minor misunderstanding'. Tell me how such ignorance of reality ... and the refusal to face it ... is a 'good' thing for our species ...

What will it take for humans to come out of the 'dark ages' for good? Because we clearly are still in the middle of them. And statements like yours only delay the inevitable. At some point, such irrational thoughts will be seen by all to be just that. IRRATIONAL. NUTS. CRAZY!

Belief systems ... by nature ... have no basis in reality. They are not supported by any physical evidence.

It doesn't matter if they are god based, or reincarnation based, or turtle based. The MASSES think they are real. The MASSES think the irrational belief is the 'basis', the foundation. You really think the screaming, sobbing, ignorant MASSES think it's just 'socio-political' necessity? Too funny.

They ( religions ) are IMAGINARY. OMG, I can't wait for our species to grow up.

There is nothing good about promoting insanity.

 

[pywakit]

Quadraphonics also wrote:

Belief systems based on craziness don't tend too last long, and they certainly don't proliferate all over the world, repeatedly arise independently, etc.

And one more thing. The above statement only proves the irrationality of your thought processes.

ALL beliefs are based on 'craziness'. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Shinto, Vodoo, whatever .... NO EXCEPTIONS.

You try to 'rationalize' certain insanities by the length of time, or the number who share the insanity.

You just don't understand, because you are so deeply conditioned.

Any one of the above-mentioned religions have no more validity than the tooth fairy, or elves. Just because a large group of nutcases decide to agree on a certain insane belief, or that they zealously protect and promote the insanity for thousands of years does not make it any more REAL than any other religion, or belief. It is not REAL.

All you have proven is that most people waste what few precious years of life they are lucky enough to have on make-believe crap. And they teach their children to believe the same crap. And so it goes .....

Ignorance prevails. As usual. And what's worse ... is that you are so conditioned that you will refuse to believe REALITY ... no matter WHAT the evidence. In fact, you will even refuse to LOOK at the evidence, because you are so convinced your insanity is real ... because "how could so many people be wrong?"

So many lives wasted. So much to learn, and you will die without ever knowing the reality that ACTUALLY exists.

How screwed up is a species that spends their lives believing in the 'imaginary', at the expense of the 'real'?

It's amazing we have accomplished anything at all ...

 

[Jack_]

Perhaps I failed to make myself clear. I never said religions were not 'useful'. Obviously, they are. They keep masses in line, provide for communal structures that ( in a perverse way ) assist in the survival of any given group of people.

But ALL religions ... with out exception ... have an irrational belief as their foundation. Religion is a tool used by the few to control the many. It has always been this way.

Religions suppress knowledge. Religions create enemies. Religions indoctrinate. Condition. Exclude. Provide severe punishments for those who stray, or question, or criticize.

All of the 'good' things that religions do could be done just as well, if not bettter with out them. If humans spent their time learning about the real world ... the real universe ... instead of the imaginary one religions promote, humanity would have already had colonies on the moon, and mars.

Religions do much more harm than good, because they are based on INSANITY, versus reality. What possible good can come in the long run from promoting insanity as reality?

Just because insanity has prevailed for thousands of years does not make it valid, or correct. OR REAL.

It took the catholic church 350 years to 'apologise' to the descendants of Galileo for the 'minor misunderstanding'. Tell me how such ignorance of reality ... and the refusal to face it ... is a 'good' thing for our species ...

What will it take for humans to come out of the 'dark ages' for good? Because we clearly are still in the middle of them. And statements like yours only delay the inevitable. At some point, such irrational thoughts will be seen by all to be just that. IRRATIONAL. NUTS. CRAZY!

Belief systems ... by nature ... have no basis in reality. They are not supported by any physical evidence.

It doesn't matter if they are god based, or reincarnation based, or turtle based. The MASSES think they are real. The MASSES think the irrational belief is the 'basis', the foundation. You really think the screaming, sobbing, ignorant MASSES think it's just 'socio-political' necessity? Too funny.

They ( religions ) are IMAGINARY. OMG, I can't wait for our species to grow up.

There is nothing good about promoting insanity.

Perhaps I failed to make myself clear. I never said religions were not 'useful'. Obviously, they are. They keep masses in line, provide for communal structures that ( in a perverse way ) assist in the survival of any given group of people.

This same could be said of science.

Now, some would be shocked at such a statement.

But, those are the ones that believe science is absolute truth and completely describes truth. Otherwise, it is all a form of religion.

 

[pywakit]

Science is a tool. A method by which we explore the physical reality we occupy. It can be misused, abused, and perverted by the 'beliefs' of anyone. It is not a perfect tool. It is not infallible.

But through trial and error, science gradually unravels the mysteries of our world, our universe, and us.

With this tool, Man has accomplished much in his understanding of the physical world. There is still much more to learn, many more mysteries to solve.

Compare that to any religion that has ever existed. None of them have ever contributed in any substantial, or meaningful way to our understanding ... of anything.

To compare science to religion is to show ignorance of the methodology of science, and ignorance of reality in general.

 

[iceaura]

But, those are the ones that believe science is absolute truth and completely describes truth.

Like who? Who believes that?

Not very many scientists.

 

[GeoffP]

Well, I might believe that. I could, certainly. Could I have a large grant to find out?

 

[kororoti]

And by the way, the only country to ever use nukes was ours. And many scientists, military commandeers, politicians, and just good old americans were dead set against it.

Both Japan and Germany had nuclear projects. They just didn't get done before ours.

We MURDERED 500,000 Japanese civilians. Men, women, children, BABIES. NON-militants. And our president knew they were non-militants.

Before that we fire-bombed virtually every city over 50,000 pop. Civillians. Women, children, BABIES.

It's good that you are able to point out that the nuclear bomb was just the tip of the iceberg.

How many american cities did the Japanese bomb? How many american babies did they slaughter? How many did they burn to death, or kill from radiation sickness .... a truly horrifying and excrutiating death.

Learn your history. You don't know 'jack'.

Our country wants to rule the world. It has since the Monroe Doctrine.

You can take your moral superiority and ..... well, you know what I mean.

I suppose you've never heard of Nanking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

The Japanese may not have actually killed any American civilians, but they certainly weren't squeamish about killing Chinese civilians.

So I ask again.

How many american babies did the Japanese slaughter? How many american civilian populations?

They could have. They had the ships. The firepower. The bombs. The manpower.

No they didn't. The Japanese didn't have sufficient access to oil to be able to run that kind of strategy. Besides, there would also have been some concern that there might be Japanese civilians living among our own population (whereas there were not many USA civilians living in Japan.)

One possible solution I've heard proposed for Israel would be to integrate their school systems, by busing Palestini and Jewish kids into the same districts and forcing them to interact. It worked in the USA to force black and white kids to get along.

 

[spidergoat]

But ALL religions ... with out exception ... have an irrational belief as their foundation. Religion is a tool used by the few to control the many. It has always been this way.

Religions suppress knowledge. Religions create enemies. Religions indoctrinate. Condition. Exclude. Provide severe punishments for those who stray, or question, or criticize.

That's generally true, but not absolutely true. There are exceptions. Even within religion, many of their beliefs have a root in perfectly rational causes. For instance, the prohibition on pigs and shellfish in some Middle Eastern religions. Buddhism and Taoism can also be classified as religions. Their root is not irrational belief, rather introspection.

 

[Gustav]

Loyola Law School professor David Glazier, a former Navy surface warfare officer, said the pilots operating the drones from afar could — in theory — be hauled into court in the countries where the attacks occur. That’s because the CIA’s drone pilots aren’t combatants in a legal sense. “It is my opinion, as well as that of most other law-of-war scholars I know, that those who participate in hostilities without the combatant’s privilege do not violate the law of war by doing so, they simply gain no immunity from domestic laws,” he said.

“Under this view CIA drone pilots are liable to prosecution under the law of any jurisdiction where attacks occur for any injuries, deaths or property damage they cause,” Glazier continued. “But under the legal theories adopted by our government in prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, these CIA officers as well as any higher-level government officials who have authorized or directed their attacks are committing war crimes.”

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/201...d-for-war-crimes-law-prof-says/#ixzz0neIfCJov

 

[S.A.M.]

It doesn't matter if its legally a war crime. Who is going to bell the cat?

US drone attacks kill 21 in Pakistan‎ - 3 minutes ago

When it comes to terrorism, the biggest guns get to kill with impunity and with no accountability.

 

[GeoffP]

Hmm. Interesting.

In parallel, the same could be said of the fate of non-Muslim minorities in the ME. Who's going to tell Egypt or the Brotherhood that people should be more...well, brotherly? Impunity, no accountability. You might be on to something here.

Then again, the Americans do have due process and internal affairs investigations.

 

[S.A.M.]

Due process in the United States was waterboarded 180+ times.

It doesn't exist anymore, not when the CIA thinks its legal to kill people with drones in an occupied country.

 

[fedr808]

So its illegal to bomb them with a precision drone that inflicts minimum casualties... but it's okay to use a B-52?

Is the reason it's illegal because the terrorists cant really kill somebody in retaliation? Because that is more cheap than illegal...