If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent)   UK judge calls attacks by unmanned drones "so cruel as to be beyond the pale of human tolerance," as if a fully-manned F-16 dropping the same bomb is somehow better   (independent.co.uk) divider line 135
    More: Strange  
•       •       •

4518 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jul 2009 at 12:33 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-07-06 10:47:01 AM  
Yeah, those things are definitely worse than live disemboweling, drawing and quartering, and pouring molten metal up a king's arse. AMIRITE?
 
2009-07-06 10:54:48 AM  
LOL WAT?

How is an umanned drone in any way WORSE than an ICBM?
 
2009-07-06 11:00:26 AM  
They're not "unmanned". They're just manned by somebody who's not sitting in them.
 
2009-07-06 11:03:37 AM  
Edsel: They're not "unmanned". They're just manned by somebody who's not sitting in them.


agileproductdesign.com
 
2009-07-06 11:36:46 AM  
There seems to be a certain class of people who doesn't understand that the only meaningful difference between UAVs and manned aircraft is that nobody dies when you missile them.
 
2009-07-06 11:45:39 AM  
www.celebrityviplounge.com

Mr. Makaveli movin' pieces like tellikenises
It's like a chess game, lets play with real pieces
Shots rang and a Taliban's brains were spilled
Another Taliban affiliate man was killed
I hit the funeral and bust at his folks
And leave the scene like a shadow in a blaze of smoke
It don't stop keep goin'
 
2009-07-06 11:46:44 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

I facepalmed so hard my nose is bleeding
 
2009-07-06 11:47:00 AM  
Lord Bingham is a farking moron.
 
2009-07-06 11:48:05 AM  
His comments are bound to intensify calls for new international rules to protect civilian populations from arbitrary attacks launched by the pilotless craft.

Methinks someone doesn't understand that these things aren't robots.
 
2009-07-06 11:51:26 AM  
Christ, it gets even dumber:

International lawyers also argue that air strikes using drones are state-sanctioned assassinations where the targeted suspected terrorist has no opportunity to defend the case against him.
 
2009-07-06 11:57:54 AM  
vygramul: Christ, it gets even dumber:

International lawyers also argue that air strikes using drones are state-sanctioned assassinations where the targeted suspected terrorist has no opportunity to defend the case against him.


Well, that's true
 
2009-07-06 12:10:54 PM  
Bored Horde: vygramul: Christ, it gets even dumber:

International lawyers also argue that air strikes using drones are state-sanctioned assassinations where the targeted suspected terrorist has no opportunity to defend the case against him.

Well, that's true


Targeted strikes against soft targets such as an Al Quaeda leader at a funeral carried out via drone is the modern equivalent of sending in a spec ops team and firing a few shoulder-mounted missiles at the place. We aren't at war, and they aren't state leader of the state we're prosecuting war against. It's assassination, and we did sign a couple of those pesky treaties that say we're not supposed to do that.

Those treaties also become bound to law via some goddamn piece of paper. Not saying we shouldn't assassinate who we feel we should, just saying that it really is assassination and not something we used to be proud of doing.
 
2009-07-06 12:11:48 PM  
Bored Horde: vygramul: Christ, it gets even dumber:

International lawyers also argue that air strikes using drones are state-sanctioned assassinations where the targeted suspected terrorist has no opportunity to defend the case against him.

Well, that's true


Imagine that...

"State your case or be terminated...

www.geekologie.com
 
2009-07-06 12:20:02 PM  
In before the "A Few Good Men" defence of ignoring the law
 
2009-07-06 12:22:26 PM  
Abdul perked his ears, disbelieving the buzzing sound that terrified his collegues that died in the past... He ran, trying to reach the caves... .the rough terrain was making the progress difficult

He can feel his veins throbbing strongly as his sweaty palms tried to fish out the cell phone... He hastily pressed the rapid dial number, hoping it would call quick enough...

"Thank you for calling the State department, if you know your party's extension, please enter it now - "

He cursed loudly in farsi - Angrily he pressed a random number.

The phone rang - The buzz of the reaper was growing louder, and Abdul felt his joints freeze in terror.

"This is Mark, How can I help you?"

"L... Lis.... Listen Infidel! I, I need to plead my case, I'll give you every---"

That was all Mark heard. He wondered who in the hell that man was.

Oh well, Back to work - Mark thought as he whistled. Mark was pleased, he just finished typing up the new press release about the tax increases.
 
2009-07-06 12:24:23 PM  
That's the most disgusting thing I've read all day. You should feel ashamed for your lack of human decency.
 
2009-07-06 12:24:38 PM  
palladiate: Bored Horde: vygramul: Christ, it gets even dumber:

International lawyers also argue that air strikes using drones are state-sanctioned assassinations where the targeted suspected terrorist has no opportunity to defend the case against him.

Well, that's true

Targeted strikes against soft targets such as an Al Quaeda leader at a funeral carried out via drone is the modern equivalent of sending in a spec ops team and firing a few shoulder-mounted missiles at the place. We aren't at war, and they aren't state leader of the state we're prosecuting war against. It's assassination, and we did sign a couple of those pesky treaties that say we're not supposed to do that.

Those treaties also become bound to law via some goddamn piece of paper. Not saying we shouldn't assassinate who we feel we should, just saying that it really is assassination and not something we used to be proud of doing.


This is no different than snipers.

We should have, however, declared war on Al Qaeda. The subject of the declaration of war doesn't have to be a country, and the US has formally declared war on non-state actors before. (Hint: Pirates.) That being said, that's OUR law. International law doesn't require us to follow our own laws, and a state of war is recognized when the recognized leader of a country says that they're at war. So technically, we ARE at war with Al Qaeda.

There's also a difference between political assassination against someone with whom you are ostensibly at peace, and killing leadership when you're at war.
 
2009-07-06 12:27:59 PM  
Bored Horde: That's the most disgusting thing I've read all day. You should feel ashamed for your lack of human decency.

Me? :)
 
2009-07-06 12:27:59 PM  
I suppose we should use UAVs to kill suspected gang members too
 
2009-07-06 12:29:32 PM  
Bored Horde: I suppose we should use UAVs to kill suspected gang members too

It sure would get those smugglers on the rafts.
 
2009-07-06 12:37:04 PM  
From TFA:
Despite having advanced surveillance equipment, drone operators failed to exercise proper caution "as required by the laws of war" in verifying their targets were combatants, said Human Rights Watch, the New York-based monitoring group, in a 39-page report. It described six alleged strikes by remote-controlled aircraft.

So... The same problem would happen if fighter pilots didn't verify their targets. Point being? I think the problem here is with the operators, not the drones.
 
2009-07-06 12:38:43 PM  
palladiate: Bored Horde: vygramul: Christ, it gets even dumber:

International lawyers also argue that air strikes using drones are state-sanctioned assassinations where the targeted suspected terrorist has no opportunity to defend the case against him.

Well, that's true

Targeted strikes against soft targets such as an Al Quaeda leader at a funeral carried out via drone is the modern equivalent of sending in a spec ops team and firing a few shoulder-mounted missiles at the place. We aren't at war, and they aren't state leader of the state we're prosecuting war against. It's assassination, and we did sign a couple of those pesky treaties that say we're not supposed to do that.

Those treaties also become bound to law via some goddamn piece of paper. Not saying we shouldn't assassinate who we feel we should, just saying that it really is assassination and not something we used to be proud of doing.


[citation needed]
 
2009-07-06 12:40:47 PM  
Bored Horde: I suppose we should use UAVs to kill suspected gang members too

sounds farking reasonable to me.

and the judge should stfu
 
2009-07-06 12:42:04 PM  
Nuke the Pope.
 
2009-07-06 12:42:05 PM  
Lord Wanker needs to STFU, EABOD and DIAF.
 
2009-07-06 12:42:51 PM  
The drones are a problem in my way of thinking but I admit they are not that far from cozy pilots dropping bombs from on high.

I would probably think using drones against pirates was cool though.
In fact, I like the idea of equipping ships with RCHelos to drop nasty stanky bombs on pirate boats. Some mixture of skunk scent and shark attractant so you can't jump overboard to wash it off in safety..
 
2009-07-06 12:43:29 PM  
www.tiscali.co.uk


Captain Blackadder: Skirt? Ha! If only. When I joined up we were still fighting colonial wars. If you saw someone in a skirt you shot him and nicked his country.
 
2009-07-06 12:44:20 PM  
palladiate: we did sign a couple of those pesky treaties that say we're not supposed to do that.

What treaties? Were they ratified by the Senate?

As far as I know, the only legal block to assassination is Executive Order 12333, and that has been interpreted to not apply to active terrorists and other combatants.
 
2009-07-06 12:47:08 PM  
I personally do agree it's weird when some dude in the Nevada desert turns people half way around the world into goo in a video game type setting.

It's kind of like divorce via text message I suppose.

I just wonder when the CIA will drop off that special qbert machine where each time you successfully jump a cube, you have in fact executed a family of brown people.
 
2009-07-06 12:47:53 PM  
We invaded Afghanistan to get rid of the Al Qaida leadership that was running the country. They are still there, just not leading the country, so these attacks on their members aren't "assassinations" but a continuance of our operations against them.

And a RPV that kills someone is no different than having someone shoot them with a .50 caliber sniper rifle, or bombed from an F-15 or stealth bomber, or for that matter a cruise missile destroying their camp. The judge needs to limit his comments to whether a ladder is dangerous for Britons to own and stupid things like that.
 
2009-07-06 12:49:33 PM  
Ender Wiggin agrees.
 
2009-07-06 12:50:10 PM  
Bored Horde: I suppose we should use UAVs to kill suspected gang members too

If it walks like a duck, drone it.
 
2009-07-06 12:50:24 PM  
How can you take seriously anyone who dresses like this:
jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com
 
2009-07-06 12:50:32 PM  
Bendal: And a RPV that kills someone is no different than having someone shoot them with a .50 caliber sniper rifle, or bombed from an F-15 or stealth bomber, or for that matter a cruise missile destroying their camp. The judge needs to limit his comments to whether a ladder is dangerous for Britons to own and stupid things like that.

THIS
 
2009-07-06 12:51:23 PM  
Sad. I really thought Mankind outgrew the idiotic notion that war could be made a civilized activity back in the 18th century. The only "humane" thing to do about war is not have them if at all possible, or, failing that, get them over as quickly as possible and minimize all the attendant suffering that they produce (famine, disease, dislocation, etc.). Anything else is self-deception.
 
2009-07-06 12:51:44 PM  
Salacious Salad: [citation needed]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9627/

"Two customary principles of the Law of Armed Conflict, which is derived from international law, also apply to targeted killings: distinction and proportionality. Distinction requires combatants "distinguish between combatants and non-combatants," Solis says, while proportionality is the principle stipulating the "destruction of civilian property must be proportional to the military advantage gained." These principles are intended to limit collateral damage, but targeted killings involving unreliable intelligence or the remote firing of missiles are at a greater risk of causing collateral damage."

Firing 3 missiles into a crowded funeral on intelligence that our target MAY be attending, without visual confirmation is pretty clearly against not only distinction of targets, but of how the US military conducted operations a scant 20 years ago.
 
2009-07-06 12:55:19 PM  
Wow.... I didn't realize so many Farkers were Al Qaeda sympathizers.
 
2009-07-06 12:55:31 PM  
Drone, drone, drone. Get it? Drone. Pilotless airplane. Drone, drone, drone - not pilotless drone!
 
2009-07-06 12:55:40 PM  
Meh. This is nothing new.

The Brits got their noses all out of joint when those pesky Colonials hid behind trees and fired on their pretty lines of soldiers marching in crisp formation, all dressed in their finest white pants and red coats.

Unsporting and all...
 
2009-07-06 12:55:45 PM  
No problem, stick a passenger seat in it and run a lottery to stick some poor UK schmuck in the seat during flights.

If the Brits want to biatch about nobody taking a personal risk for a bombing mission, they can take the risk.

It's hard to believe this is the same bunch of douchebags we protected from the Germans in WWII.
 
2009-07-06 12:55:47 PM  
GroverCleveland: I personally do agree it's weird when some dude in the Nevada desert turns people half way around the world into goo in a video game type setting.

It's kind of like divorce via text message I suppose.

I just wonder when the CIA will drop off that special qbert machine where each time you successfully jump a cube, you have in fact executed a family of brown people.


Meethinks it unseemly for a man to kill someone from afar with that blasted crossbow!
 
2009-07-06 12:56:21 PM  
Dear Penthouse,

CrispFlows:
Abdul perked his ears, disbelieving the buzzing sound that terrified his collegues that died in the past... He ran, trying to reach the caves... .the rough terrain was making the progress difficult

He can feel his veins throbbing strongly as his sweaty palms tried to fish out the cell phone... He hastily pressed the rapid dial number, hoping it would call quick enough...

"Thank you for calling the State department, if you know your party's extension, please enter it now - "

He cursed loudly in farsi - Angrily he pressed a random number.

The phone rang - The buzz of the reaper was growing louder, and Abdul felt his joints freeze in terror.

"This is Mark, How can I help you?"

"L... Lis.... Listen Infidel! I, I need to plead my case, I'll give you every---"

That was all Mark heard. He wondered who in the hell that man was.

Oh well, Back to work - Mark thought as he whistled. Mark was pleased, he just finished typing up the new press release about the tax increases.
 
2009-07-06 12:56:47 PM  
Yeah, cause the person piloting the Drone 500 miles away, treating it like a Video Game makes it so impersonal.
 
2009-07-06 12:56:48 PM  
Lord Bingham asked in the interview, which addressed the issue of the state being bound by the rule of law: "Are there, for example, and this goes to conflict, not post-conflict situations, weapons that ought to be outlawed? From time to time in the history of international law various weapons have been thought to be so cruel as to be beyond the pale of human tolerance. I think cluster bombs and landmines are the most recent examples.

Guess what, the US still has cluster bombs and landmines too. If that's not a good indication that we don't care, I dunno what is.
 
2009-07-06 12:56:59 PM  
OH NOES TEH ROBOTS ARE COMEING!! IT'S JUDGEMENT DAIYE!!!1
 
2009-07-06 12:57:52 PM  
dittybopper: As far as I know, the only legal block to assassination is Executive Order 12333, and that has been interpreted to not apply to active terrorists and other combatants.

I'm saying firing RPGs into a crowd of civilians on the off chance some asshole we're trying to kill is in there is something we did promise other nations we wouldn't try to do.

It's also a shiatty way to conduct war.
 
2009-07-06 12:59:32 PM  
palladiate: Salacious Salad: [citation needed]

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9627/

"Two customary principles of the Law of Armed Conflict, which is derived from international law, also apply to targeted killings: distinction and proportionality. Distinction requires combatants "distinguish between combatants and non-combatants," Solis says, while proportionality is the principle stipulating the "destruction of civilian property must be proportional to the military advantage gained." These principles are intended to limit collateral damage, but targeted killings involving unreliable intelligence or the remote firing of missiles are at a greater risk of causing collateral damage."

Firing 3 missiles into a crowded funeral on intelligence that our target MAY be attending, without visual confirmation is pretty clearly against not only distinction of targets, but of how the US military conducted operations a scant 20 years ago.


Never mind that lad...we have to protect the public!
 
2009-07-06 12:59:45 PM  
wademh: The drones are a problem in my way of thinking but I admit they are not that far from cozy pilots dropping bombs from on high.

I would probably think using drones against pirates was cool though.
In fact, I like the idea of equipping ships with RCHelos to drop nasty stanky bombs on pirate boats. Some mixture of skunk scent and shark attractant so you can't jump overboard to wash it off in safety..


Well, a combination of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil does stink. If a bomb containing these two substances were to hit a boat filled with Pirates it would produce large quantities of something bearing a remarkable resemblance to chum. Chum is very effective at attracting sharks when dispersed into water. We got stanky, we got shark attractant.... I think we can do this.
 
2009-07-06 01:03:19 PM  
Unmanned weapons are condemned by Lord Bingham as 'beyond the pale'

What does a Jim Gaffigan album have anything to do with the use of these drones?
 
2009-07-06 01:06:18 PM  
They are just jealous that it is taking away someone's job.
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report