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.

(CNN)   A better question is "When are drone killings not Illegal?"   (cnn.com) divider line 232
    More: Scary, Hellfire missile, targeted killings, United Nations Special Rapporteur, sovereign states, lethal force, research professor, right to life, use of force  
•       •       •

9773 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Aug 2012 at 10:06 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-16 10:59:23 AM  

ChemicalRummy: Hope you didn't notice nothing changed. The patriot act is automatically renewed, no longer controversial, and the president can now kill American citizens with no trial.

Christ, my outrage from the Bush years has transformed into deep shame.


If you think the Patriot Act's renewal was not controversial, you clearly weren't paying attention. Additionally, the president has been able to kill American citizens without trial since the 9/11 AUMF was passed.
 
2012-08-16 10:59:27 AM  
If a war is worth fighting, it is worth fighting at full power, or not at all.

You fight a halfass war and you will lose in time, as we have seen in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and every place else where we do not apply full power.

Morals and politics have nothing to do with it, it is a question of what can be accomplished, and at what cost.
 
2012-08-16 10:59:36 AM  

Rurouni: That's so cute. A woman writing about what's legal and illegal about war. It's like watching those adorable monkeys ride those tiny bicycles.


images.cheezburger.com
 
2012-08-16 10:59:42 AM  

ChipNASA: Because


thanks, i needed a copy of that and now i have one.
 
2012-08-16 10:59:54 AM  
 
2012-08-16 11:00:20 AM  

TheGreatGazoo: Lost Thought 00: Leeds: Obama is the only Nobel Peace Prize recipient who maintains a "kill list."

Let that sink in for a minute...

Leeds: Obama is the only Nobel Peace Prize recipient who maintains a "kill list."

Let that sink in for a minute...

Only because all the Israeli Prime Ministers they awarded it to are dead

Don't forget Yasser Arafat.

John Yoo argued before Congress under Bush that it was A-OK for the president to order that a child's testicles be crushed in front of his parents if it was deemed necessary by the president to extract information from the parents.


I don't recall John Yoo receiving a Peace Prize.
 
2012-08-16 11:00:26 AM  

Nem Wan: It's a mockery of the idea that this is legal authority


It's perfectly kosher, technically speaking.

It's a mockery of the idea that this is moral authority, but since we're talking about Congress that's normally irrelevant.
 
2012-08-16 11:00:39 AM  

BullBearMS: sprawl15: Yemen has been working with us.

If by working with us you mean helping us cover it up when we murder dozens of innocent women and children in a single drone strike.

"If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do--the women and children that represented the vast majority of the deaths in this first strike that Obama authorized on Yemen--those people were murdered by President Obama, on his orders, because there was believed to be someone from Al Qaeda in that area.

There's only one person that's been identified that had any connection to Al Qaeda there. And 21 women and 14 children were killed in that strike and the U.S. tried to cover it up, and say it was a Yemeni strike, and we know from the Wikileaks cables that David Petraeus conspired with the president of Yemen to lie to the world about who did that bombing.

It's murder--it's mass murder--when you say, 'We are going to bomb this area' because we believe a terrorist is there, and you know that women and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not bomb that area if they believe that women and children are there. I'm sorry, that's murder."


Are you suggesting that there has never, in the history of America, been collateral damage in any war we've fought?
 
2012-08-16 11:01:29 AM  
I'm going to build a drone with heavy weapons. It's task will be to kill drones. Let the drone wars begin!
 
2012-08-16 11:02:04 AM  

qorkfiend: Are you suggesting that there has never, in the history of America, been collateral damage in any war we've fought?


that's RIGHT... and now THE ENTIRE PLANET is a war zone. which means they can kill anybody they want for any f*cking reason.

ChipNASA: images.cheezburger.com


fail, dude... you misspelt 'sammich'
 
2012-08-16 11:02:49 AM  
The Zerg overmind wants to know.

/stop killin my drones!
 
2012-08-16 11:03:14 AM  

MadHatter500: Use of armed force is one of the many tools that the US uses to ensure it's best interests are protected abroad, it's been this way since KoreaTripoli in 1801. If you disagree that's great but don't try to frame the question as if something new is going on.

FTFY


Yeah, I figured there were probably earlier examples but it's too early to put that much work into posting on FARK.

/for the record I do not condone this type of foreign policy on the part of the USA or any other nation
 
2012-08-16 11:03:29 AM  

Interceptor1: I'm going to build a drone with heavy weapons. It's task will be to kill drones. Let the drone wars begin!


weapons = bird-tations?

farm6.staticflickr.com
 
2012-08-16 11:03:44 AM  

qorkfiend: Are you suggesting that there has never, in the history of America, been collateral damage in any war we've fought?


He's suggesting that he can disprove Yemen assisting us by showing that Yemen is assisting us.

I'm pretty sure the MS in his name stands for the disease ravaging his brain.
 
2012-08-16 11:03:50 AM  

miss diminutive: [img36.imageshack.us image 249x48]

Drones are killing people? Why exactly aren't we just nerve stapling them?


Done in 5. Love that game!
 
2012-08-16 11:04:46 AM  
 
2012-08-16 11:05:48 AM  
Obama should give the peace prize back and admit that he has done nothing to deserve it. That is not meant as a criticism, he hasn't, and he is continuing to show he hasn't deserved a peace prize, again, this isn't to be critical of the acts he has had to take part in, it can and has been warranted in most cases.
That being said, I have no issue with the President having a kill list, I believe it may be necessary in this day and age. I also have no issue with the use of drones as a means to kill those who will do harm to Americans. Using drones or any means to kill American citizens however is a different matter. Without the due process guaranteed these citizens by our constitution killing them is murder and unforgivable and illegal. The murder of citizens, murder because they haven't been afforded due process, breaks the oath to uphold the constitution that the President took when taking office. He needs to be held accountable for that.
 
2012-08-16 11:05:50 AM  

IronOcelot: ChipNASA: IronOcelot: ChipNASA: "President" Ballrog, HUSSEIN, Sombrero, Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers, al-Chicago, Chocolate Jesus, B-Rock the Islamic Shock, Barky McTeleprompter, Wizard of Uhhs, BoBo the Clown, Oblahbla, Jug Ears, Saunas breach akimbo, Waffles The Clown, Borborygmos Hammerhiem, The Rainbow King, Bukkake O'Bunga, OBIGOT, El Jefe Chocholate, "Jace the Mindsculpter", Hopey McChangeypants, Oyobi, Bonzo the Time Traveler, La Bamba yo' Mamma, Samurai Kebab Nachos, Fartbongo, II"

Need a little help with the second one......

Presidential Canduhdate Mitt "The Shiat" Romney, Romneyhood, Ritz Cracka, Willard the Republitard, El Jefe Acartonado, Milli Vanilli Romni, Papaya Vagina, Romman & Roybin,

Damn you.
The wife sprayed coffee on me at that one.

Came Hard, did she???
/or was it a coffee enema
//usually I have to pay *extra* for that.



Coffee enema night is on Tuesday
so sadly this was a regular cup.



Pics or it didn't happen... 
 
2012-08-16 11:06:06 AM  

BullBearMS:

"...murdered... murder.. mass murder... murder..."


[inigo_montoya.jpg]
 
2012-08-16 11:06:54 AM  
If it's brown, flush it down
 
2012-08-16 11:07:16 AM  
So, with a simple change in the label of the ruling party, the Government has now gotten both halves of the political spectrum to blindly and viciously defend arbitrary, collateral-laden killings, "because they said so." Now, if they can just get those two halves to do so at the same time, as many people in this thread are advocating for, they'll have pulled off the coveted "rubber stamp populace" hat trick.

Whatever you say, Mr. President, that guy and his family watching the World Cup in their home were clearly planning terrorist attacks! Fark them and their neighbors within the blast radius!
 
2012-08-16 11:07:58 AM  

Tyee: Using drones or any means to kill American citizens however is a different matter.


Why do you think citizenship has any bearing on the government's responsibility to provide due process?

Tyee: Without the due process guaranteed these citizens by our constitution killing them is murder and unforgivable and illegal.


Our Constitution doesn't guarantee rights to citizens, it guarantees rights to human beings.
 
2012-08-16 11:08:22 AM  

James F. Campbell: Mmm. This should be an interesting thread. This is one of those issues divides real liberals from party-line Democrats.


This

The usual suspects from the Politics tab have quickly put in an appearance to defend murdering innocent women and children as long as it's their team doing it.

/real liberals don't defend murder
 
2012-08-16 11:08:25 AM  

sprawl15: The AUMF does not require any oversight. Congress can, at any point, retract or modify the AUMF to place further restrictions on Presidential determination. The Executive branch has voluntarily created vetting processes, but these aren't technically necessary.


You are absolutely correct. The AUMF requires no oversight, which is exactly the problem. It needs to be repealed and replaced with at the very least a military tribunal. That tribunal can still set up a kill list that allows for quick use of intelligence, but 10 years after 9/11, it is time for us to re-assert checks and balances.

Though, why you think a FISA court would be applicable in this case is beyond me. The people killed in al Qaeda camps in Yemen receive the exact same level of due process as people killed in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. There is no reason whatsoever to expect them to be treated differently.

FISA is not applicable. The point I was (poorly) trying to make is that the weak protections I have against wire-tapping are stronger than the protections I have against ending up on a kill list.
 
2012-08-16 11:08:41 AM  

Publikwerks: odinsposse: That's US law. Killing people overseas would fall under international law. Which is what the article addresses.

Well, since the United States is not a participant in the International Criminal Court, it's laws mean fark all to us.


It's not clear the International Criminal Court means fark all to anyone. International Law is a tough problem.
 
2012-08-16 11:10:44 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: This chicken-shiat, cowardly, remote murdering, is useless and a detriment to the way of life of a supposedly great nation.


Ever since someone invented the javelin so that they could kill people remotely, it's just been a constant move towards more cowardliness. Soldiers today are pussies for using firearms. Real men kill each other with their bare hands - but only in evenly matched engagements.
 
2012-08-16 11:11:32 AM  

Tetzlaff: Yet the U.S. uses tort...sorry...I mean "enhanced interrogation".


Not anymore. One of Obama's first executive orders.
 
2012-08-16 11:12:02 AM  

Name_Omitted: You are absolutely correct. The AUMF requires no oversight, which is exactly the problem. It needs to be repealed and replaced with at the very least a military tribunal. That tribunal can still set up a kill list that allows for quick use of intelligence, but 10 years after 9/11, it is time for us to re-assert checks and balances.


The problem with this approach is that when the military bombs a Taliban supply dump in Afghanitan that's building IEDs, they do so under AUMF authorization. To take this route, you would require a military tribunal before allowing that bombing - or, more generally, before any action that isn't immediately defensive in nature.
 
2012-08-16 11:12:25 AM  

dwrash: Legal according what laws...

Is the constitution the supreme law of our land or is international law?


Point being, it's on their land. TFA is talking about international law on war crimes.
 
2012-08-16 11:12:43 AM  

Tetzlaff: And you know a weapon is really ethically questionable if even the Germans won't touch it


Hey, that's pretty funny. Also, it would be funny if you would take a gun, stick it into your mouth, and shoot yourself. Especially if you flopped around on the floor in agony bleeding to death.

/Hey, I'm as edgy as Tetzlaff.
 
2012-08-16 11:14:18 AM  

BullBearMS: James F. Campbell: Mmm. This should be an interesting thread. This is one of those issues divides real liberals from party-line Democrats.

This

The usual suspects from the Politics tab have quickly put in an appearance to defend murdering innocent women and children as long as it's their team doing it.

/real liberals don't defend murder


I don't think anyone defends murder. Murder != killing someone who is an active participant of an organization that advocates for my death and has demonstrated the wherewithal to do it.

It might not be self-defense, but it sure ain't murder.
 
2012-08-16 11:16:17 AM  

Tomahawk513: I don't think anyone defends murder. Murder != killing someone who is an active participant of an organization that advocates for my death and has demonstrated the wherewithal to do it.



And their wives and children and neighbors.
 
2012-08-16 11:16:22 AM  
Don't worry, pretty soon OCP will start making these bad boys.
www.floridageekscene.com

Also...
3.bp.blogspot.com

/Got nuttin...
 
2012-08-16 11:16:53 AM  

Tomahawk513: I don't think anyone defends murder. Murder != killing someone who is an active participant of an organization that advocates for my death and has demonstrated the wherewithal to do it.


What if the person isn't an active participant and was misclassified as such? Ahh then it is murder.

If only we could develop a system where one side could present evidence and another present a defense to that evidence...
 
2012-08-16 11:19:17 AM  

MugzyBrown: Tomahawk513: I don't think anyone defends murder. Murder != killing someone who is an active participant of an organization that advocates for my death and has demonstrated the wherewithal to do it.

What if the person isn't an active participant and was misclassified as such? Ahh then it is murder.

If only we could develop a system where one side could present evidence and another present a defense to that evidence...


I'm pretty sure we'd be happy to put them to trial if they'd just turn themselves in.
 
2012-08-16 11:19:57 AM  
Why is this an issue? Honestly.

What difference does it make whether we bust in and shoot him (Osama), or a drone fires a missile (every al Queda #2 ever)?

U.S. law doesn't distinguish between murder with a sniper rifle or murder with a knife.

I don't get it. Dead is dead.
 
2012-08-16 11:26:02 AM  
See this little guy? He's one of the innocent people we have murdered. Here he is meeting with our officials to protest the number of innocents who have recently been murdered.

dl.dropbox.com

The attentive, unassuming young man sitting near me in the pictures on the right is Tariq Aziz.

He was 16 when we met last October, just a year older than my own teenage son, although with his neatly trimmed beard and traditional shalwar kameez he looked more like the grown men alongside him.

Tariq had travelled many hours to the relative safety of Islamabad from his home in Waziristan, a rugged Pakistani tribal area on the border with Afghanistan.

He was there to join a protest about the plague of American 'drones' - the remote-controlled aircraft that have left a bloody trail of death and fury among the innocent villagers who struggle to earn a living in the unforgiving mountainous region.

Tariq was one of the youngest in the group of men, some blind, others missing limbs, who had descended on the capital from Waziristan, armed with gruesome photographs of women and children blown to pieces among debris and Hellfire missile parts stamped with serial numbers and the US flag.

I was there to distribute digital cameras so that the people from Waziristan could record the damage and death caused by the drones, as part of a campaign to prove that innocent civilians are dying.

Tariq, a keen amateur photographer, was given one of the cameras before he left to return home.

Three days later he was dead. Like his cousin, who had died in April 2010 and whose identity card he clutched when we met, he was blown to pieces by a drone strike. The appalling irony of how his young life ended will stay with me for ever.

According to Tariq's family, at about noon on the day he died he had been driving with his younger cousin Waheed to pick up an aunt after her wedding.


How in the hell can a 16 year old boy be murdered for the crime of driving while a brown person?

Indeed, newspaper revelations last week about the "kill list" showed the Obama administration defines a militant as any military-age male in the strike zone when its drone attacks.

Let that sink in. Our official government policy is that if we kill them, they must be a terrorist.
 
2012-08-16 11:28:12 AM  

lennavan: I'm pretty sure we'd be happy to put them to trial if they'd just turn themselves in.


Trial in absentia
 
2012-08-16 11:30:10 AM  

Banned on the Run: Why is this an issue? Honestly.

What difference does it make whether we bust in and shoot him (Osama), or a drone fires a missile (every al Queda #2 ever)?

U.S. law doesn't distinguish between murder with a sniper rifle or murder with a knife.

I don't get it. Dead is dead.


We attempted to capture Osama bin Laden alive and ended up shooting him in self defense. I don't think drone missiles have capture capability. The law does differentiate between these two. It's why the police usually try to get you to surrender or take you alive rather than just snipe you from far away.
 
2012-08-16 11:30:51 AM  

vygramul: Not anymore. One of Obama's first executive orders.


Tomahawk513: BullBearMS: James F. Campbell: Mmm. This should be an interesting thread. This is one of those issues divides real liberals from party-line Democrats.

This

The usual suspects from the Politics tab have quickly put in an appearance to defend murdering innocent women and children as long as it's their team doing it.

/real liberals don't defend murder

I don't think anyone defends murder. Murder != killing someone who is an active participant of an organization that advocates for my death and has demonstrated the wherewithal to do it.

It might not be self-defense, but it sure ain't murder.


Here's a study that's now a couple of years old and out of date. It also only covers the death of innocents in Pakistan.

the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism has issued a new study on civilians killed by American drones, concluding that at least 385 civilians have been killed in the past seven years, including at least 168 children.

That infant was coming right for us!
 
2012-08-16 11:31:36 AM  
Last I heard all bullets and missiles are remote controlled lol 

/when drones attack!
 
2012-08-16 11:31:43 AM  

urban.derelict: qorkfiend: Are you suggesting that there has never, in the history of America, been collateral damage in any war we've fought?

that's RIGHT... and now THE ENTIRE PLANET is a war zone. which means they can kill anybody they want for any f*cking reason.

ChipNASA: images.cheezburger.com

fail, dude... you misspelt 'sammich'


Not mine I just ripped it off GIS....but you're right....it is properly spelled "SAMMICH" in that context.
 
2012-08-16 11:33:23 AM  

sprawl15: Tyee: Using drones or any means to kill American citizens however is a different matter.

Why do you think citizenship has any bearing on the government's responsibility to provide due process?

Tyee: Without the due process guaranteed these citizens by our constitution killing them is murder and unforgivable and illegal.

Our Constitution doesn't guarantee rights to citizens, it guarantees rights to human beings.



Because the USA has no jurisdiction or obligation outside it's boarders or citizenship. The USA also has no standing, no powers, no jurisdiction, and no obligation to impose our "rights", or your view of what our rights entail on the citizens of other nations. How arrogant is it that our values have to be looked at, or are revered by you as "the correct values or rights" that everyone world wide should have to live by?
For example, the USA has no standing in the voting rights or for that matter the existence of such rights anywhere beyond the boarders of the USA.
 
2012-08-16 11:33:23 AM  
As always there's a difference between legality and ethics. Personally, I don't think we should be at "war" at all. I would have agents undermining Al Qaeda, improved security at home, improved security for WMD control, and I'd send in the seals to put a hole in Bin Laden's head. That would have been it.

Just think about it for a second, they kill 3,000 Americans and destroy the WTC, bomb the US Cole, and a few embassies. That was it, that's all they can do to us until they get their hands on WMDs. Now that certainly is terrible, but in retrospect we've spent trillions on the War on Terror (and will spend trillions more in the future to take care of vets), 5000+ American soldiers killed, 40,000+ wounded, hundreds of thousands of enemies killed, hundreds of thousands of civilians displaced.

These costs would all be well worth it if we were any closer to defeating the terrorists, but it's been a decade now, and somehow I don't think the world is really a safer place. Every time we invade a region we just spawn new enemies that we will have to deal with in the future, and those will spawn new enemies, etc.

Anyways, round about way of saying: Yes, these drone strikes are legal, but I don't think we should even be fighting this "war" in the manner we are currently fighting it.
 
2012-08-16 11:34:21 AM  

MugzyBrown: lennavan: I'm pretty sure we'd be happy to put them to trial if they'd just turn themselves in.

Trial in absentia


Illegal and unconstitutional. Google 'habeas corpus'.
 
2012-08-16 11:38:51 AM  

sprawl15: The problem with this approach is that when the military bombs a Taliban supply dump in Afghanitan that's building IEDs, they do so under AUMF authorization. To take this route, you would require a military tribunal before allowing that bombing - or, more generally, before any action that isn't immediately defensive in nature.


I think authorization could be written in such a way as to allow for this. The military has a framework for assessing targets, and while I understand that the target that have made it to the President's desk have most likely gone through that framework, I would prefer some sort of codification to it as it got there. Having one person in charge of life in death, well... as Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely."

At the very least, Congress could take back ownership of the war. I know it is hard to declare war against an agency that has no state, but going forward, we will need to figure out how to do so.
 
2012-08-16 11:39:21 AM  

sprawl15: MugzyBrown: lennavan: I'm pretty sure we'd be happy to put them to trial if they'd just turn themselves in.

Trial in absentia

Illegal and unconstitutional. Google 'habeas corpus'.


If I google habeas corpus will it also show me how it's constitutional to execute criminals w/o trial or even formal charges?
 
2012-08-16 11:39:36 AM  

Tyee: The USA also has no standing, no powers, no jurisdiction, and no obligation to impose our "rights", or your view of what our rights entail on the citizens of other nations.


This is irrelevant to what we're talking about. When the government assumes authority to act in any situation, they're bound by their Constitutional restrictions. Citizenship does not give some higher tier of protection.

Tyee: For example, the USA has no standing in the voting rights or for that matter the existence of such rights anywhere beyond the boarders of the USA.


Again, totally irrelevant.

You made the argument that citizenship changed the allowable actions of the US government against someone it already chose to assert authority over. You said that using drones to kill citizens (as opposed to non-citizens) somehow is a 'different matter'. Why? Under what justification are you making that argument?
 
2012-08-16 11:40:07 AM  
i512.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-16 11:40:47 AM  

vygramul: Not anymore. One of Obama's first executive orders.


His second was to accelerate drone attacks. No need for torture. They're dead, Jim.

For the life of me, aside from Obamacare, I don't know why Republicans don't like Obama. He's George Bush, with results and a larger kill list.
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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