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  
•       •       •

9764 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Aug 2012 at 10:06 AM (1 year 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 01:14:50 PM

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


Are calling Obama a black Jew? Obama Davis Jr.?

Who can take a country, and split it right in 2?
He has a little kill list and you all call him a black jew....
The Obama man can.....Ohhhh, the Obama man can!
The Obama can use his executive orders to make the world feel good...
 
2012-08-16 01:19:00 PM
I tend toward the opinion that they are illegal, whether it is a R or D doing the killing. At the very least, the secrecy and lack of oversight is very disturbing.

I remember the huge outcry when people were detained, from a declared war zone no less, at Guantanamo without due process. Yet now all those same people seem to have no problem with outright summary execution without due process, and not even in a declared war zone. Partisan politics at it's absolute worst.
 
2012-08-16 01:21:49 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: 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.


This wouldn't also cause you to wonder why democrats like Obama?
 
2012-08-16 01:37:28 PM

steelkidney: "Also, the Bush administration carried out fewer targeted killings: Of the 336 attacks as of July 2012 in Pakistan, 284 have occurred under Obama. Bush officials were better able, therefore, to suppress discussion. Also, human rights advocates had their hands full with the more visible problems of the Bush era: torture, Guantanamo Bay and military commissions. A number of them then joined the Obama administration; rather than condemn targeted killing as the violation of international law that it is, some former critics are defending it, presumably as part of their job."

Oh, good. I was afraid we'd have to deal with a double standard.


It's not the double standards that bother me, it's the doublethink.
 
2012-08-16 01:40:21 PM

Callous: The problem is when you don't know that a terrorist is living near you. Kinda like when the cops kick in your door at O'Dark:30 because a guy who lives in the same building you do sells drugs and they got a warrant to search the entire building because they don't know which apartment is his.


Which is a good analogy because it swings it back around to the real issue: the laws that enable this.

It's not that the cops kicking in your door at O'Dark:30 is illegal, it's that it's immoral and the laws should be changed to reflect that.
 
2012-08-16 01:46:58 PM

Baron Harkonnen: 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.


Oh you poor guy. Did I hurt your feelings? I mean: Habe ich Deine Gefühle verletz, du armer Junge?
I had no Idea that some 21st century Germans are that touchy-feely now. Lighten up, Fritz.
 
2012-08-16 02:14:03 PM

Parmenius: sprawl15: Nem Wan: The resolution is limited to the past tense, involving people who were involved in something in the past.

With time, that's getting pretty thin.

Since it extends to organizations and those that assisted those organizations, it rolls along as splinter groups form.

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

Under the premise that killings outside Afghanistan are outside the 'war zone'. Our AUMF does not designate a section of terrain as a 'war zone', nor does it provide for a specific target. Our 'war zone' is the world. If they found al Qaeda holing up in a farmhouse outside Ottowa, we could bomb the shiat out of it no problem. We may have a political nightmare on our hands, but not a legal one as far as our government's concerned.

That's kind of the problem with Congress granting ridiculously broad powers.

It's interesting that countries with a capable government and security apparatus don't have drone strikes happening inside them. Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan have huge difficulty asserting sovereignty in any sense, and the result is "ungoverned space" that the baddies use to their advantage. I have no problem with whacking terrorists in ungoverned space, and it's weird to pretend the same rules apply. I think we can agree that Canada is not ungoverned space! I can't imagine the political nightmare, as you said...


So any place that has majority white people is not ungoverned space. Any place with brown people who talk funny....that must be ungoverned space.

How convenient.
 
2012-08-16 02:24:21 PM

BullBearMS: So when the US starts invading and occupying Muslim nations and killing the people inside them, an American citizen no longer has the Constitutional right to criticize his own government for it's actions?


Put the strawman away and my statement back in context: Don't renounce/denounce the USA while hanging around terrorists/insurgents/militants targeting the USA. Feel free to criticize the government all you want within US borders(I certainly do it plenty), in European countries, heck, even in the middle east. Just not around terrorists or valid military targets. Oh, and it's also a good idea to NOT advocate violent overthrow of the government.

As for the occupation, well, I've said before(not necessarily here) that we're trying to clean up the horrible decisions we made during the cold war. We didn't 'act with honor' during the cold war, we supported horrible regimes, and we're paying the price now. Unfortunately, we let Afghanistan degrade after our supporting them against the USSR. We shouldn't leave allies in the lurch, especially after they've practically been reduced to rubble. Of course, some days I wonder if we've learned and can actually make good decisions even now.

We've done a lot of bad in Afghanistan and Iraq; but it's mostly been due to incompetence and individual misconduct. We didn't want a soldier going nuts and killing a bunch of innocent families. Much like the Aurora shooter, he just did it. We didn't want another burning the Koran; he didn't know any better. They get cultural sensitivity training to try to avoid the major minefields, but stuff happens.

Now, the prison things - I wish I'd seen a general punished. Call it 'command responsibility'. But that's me.

Callous: The problem is when you don't know that a terrorist is living near you. Kinda like when the cops kick in your door at O'Dark:30 because a guy who lives in the same building you do sells drugs and they got a warrant to search the entire building because they don't know which apartment is his.


That's not being on a 'kill list', that's being collateral damage. Equally fatal, but you're individually less likely to get hit than if we're directly targeting you. We're that good, at least. But the military is still made up of non-perfect humans; they screw up, and military screw-ups tend to cost lives. Just like police/doctor/firefighter screwups.
 
2012-08-16 02:27:59 PM

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."


I wonder how people would feel if they did drone strikes in black neighborhoods because a drug dealer lived there? I bet they would say it was justified - Pres. Obama must know best - especially because it's black people.

The level of callousness of "mainstream" America (yes, I mean white folk) is appalling.

Oh well.
 
2012-08-16 02:34:41 PM

macadamnut: jigger: macadamnut: [i512.photobucket.com image 850x583]

I guess you're special. Usually that gets people banned for a day. Unless it's just me.

Truly? Wasn't it in Life magazine?


see the section on "Graphic image content"
 
2012-08-16 02:35:47 PM

BullBearMS: 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 image 634x433]

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?

Ind ...


The media should be outraged over something like this.

/Was going to vote Romney anyway
 
2012-08-16 02:36:02 PM

Hermione_Granger: I wonder how people would feel if they did drone strikes in black neighborhoods because a drug dealer lived there? I bet they would say it was justified - Pres. Obama must know best - especially because it's black people.


What the fark are you babbling about?
 
2012-08-16 03:02:18 PM
Obiwanfartbongo: Hoax and Shame.
 
2012-08-16 03:08:52 PM

Callous: Both questions can be answered by looking at the letter in parentheses after his name. For most it has nothing to due with policies and behavior. It's all about which team he's on.


For the most part, these days there is not any difference between politics and supporting sports teams. Right or wrong, good or bad do not matter anymore as much as which side you support when formulating an opinion on a matter.
 
2012-08-16 03:12:19 PM

trappedspirit: macadamnut: jigger: macadamnut: [i512.photobucket.com image 850x583]

I guess you're special. Usually that gets people banned for a day. Unless it's just me.

Truly? Wasn't it in Life magazine?

see the section on "Graphic image content"


Oh I've seen it. And been banned once before, for posting a guy disguised as a toilet. I just can't see how "And Babies" which won I think a pulitzer(?) is more objectionable than Phan Thi Kim Phuc running naked with her back burned off, which gets posted here all the time.
 
2012-08-16 03:40:41 PM

lennavan: 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.


We shot Osama in self defense just like Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin.
And do you think for a second that Seal Team 6 had any orders other than "shoot to kill"?
A captured Osama would be a nightmare legally, and would be the biggest recruiting tool ever for al-Queda.
Osama was dead the second that helicopter touched down.
 
2012-08-16 03:54:44 PM

Banned on the Run: Osama was dead the second that helicopter touched down.


I heard he was still alive when they threw him off the boat.

/Some men just want to watch the world drown.
 
2012-08-16 04:01:52 PM

lennavan: I don't think drone missiles have capture capability.


Hell, the technology's been there since 1967.
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-16 04:11:30 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: 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.


Well, Obamacare IS a big one. Your point has been made frequently. It's equally amazing that the left doesn't utterly hate the guy.

/.02
 
2012-08-16 04:48:08 PM

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,


magic underwear?
 
2012-08-16 05:04:11 PM
Might makes right. The US is free to invade, bomb, drone, terrorize, etc. any country that it feels is "coming right for us!"

One day you will wake up and realize that most of the world hates and fears you for this type of behavior. Oh wait, that happened already. Never mind then.
 
2012-08-16 05:13:47 PM
This is an easy one to analyze, simply replace the countries involved and see if it's alright still.

"Today, Spainish military forces attacked a US citizen with an armed drone in Kansas identified as actively engaged in terrorism in mainland Spain."

Yeah, seems legit.
 
2012-08-16 06:02:32 PM

Rent Party: Nem Wan: sprawl15: planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons

The resolution is limited to the past tense, involving people who were involved in something in the past.


An organization that was involved in those events is still extant, and still plotting.

The AUMF is still relevant.


How does the definition of organization apply to these groups? Do al-Qaeda spinoffs have to get material support from someone in the "original" al-Qaeda or do they just have to say things similar to what people in al-Qaeda say and call them selves al-Qaeda? Just because wannabes want the credibility of al-Qaeda doesn't mean they were connected to 9/11 in any material way.
 
2012-08-16 06:06:20 PM

Nem Wan: Rent Party: Nem Wan: sprawl15: planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons

The resolution is limited to the past tense, involving people who were involved in something in the past.


An organization that was involved in those events is still extant, and still plotting.

The AUMF is still relevant.

How does the definition of organization apply to these groups? Do al-Qaeda spinoffs have to get material support from someone in the "original" al-Qaeda or do they just have to say things similar to what people in al-Qaeda say and call them selves al-Qaeda? Just because wannabes want the credibility of al-Qaeda doesn't mean they were connected to 9/11 in any material way.


If they want to call themselves al Queda, then who are we to disagree? Whether they are or aren't is irrelevant. They think they are. They will behave like they are. We will treat them like they are.

Playing "No true Scottsman" with them is counter productive.
 
2012-08-16 06:25:26 PM

BullBearMS: arethereanybeernamesleft: 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.

**snippage**


The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration's practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administratio ...

Not sure how to tell you but just how much "power" do you think either Bush or Obama has/had as president? They're all just puppets for the Masters, told what to say and when, like good little puppets. Issues like these go beyond any single president's action or lack thereof. Not attacking you or your concerns but these are things are NOT going to stop because of what one man, not even President of the US, thinks or wants.

...just my 2 cents
 
2012-08-16 06:36:55 PM

Frederf: This is an easy one to analyze, simply replace the countries involved and see if it's alright still.

"Today, Spainish military forces attacked a US citizen with an armed drone in Kansas identified as actively engaged in terrorism in mainland Spain."

Yeah, seems legit.


If Spain requests his extradition from the US and we refuse, and if the US promised to help track him down only to assist him in evading Spain, if Spain gave the US billions to assist in the search, and if this person was lauching attacks from the US on Spanish troops, then YES, Spain would be completely justified in launching a drone attack on this US citizen.

Thanks! Fun game.
 
2012-08-16 06:42:01 PM

Banned on the Run: Frederf: This is an easy one to analyze, simply replace the countries involved and see if it's alright still.

"Today, Spainish military forces attacked a US citizen with an armed drone in Kansas identified as actively engaged in terrorism in mainland Spain."

Yeah, seems legit.

If Spain requests his extradition from the US and we refuse, and if the US promised to help track him down only to assist him in evading Spain, if Spain gave the US billions to assist in the search, and if this person was lauching attacks from the US on Spanish troops, then YES, Spain would be completely justified in launching a drone attack on this US citizen.

Thanks! Fun game.


And interesting you chose Kansas.
Let's say that individual being targeted is a religious extremist, say, Fred Phelps. Pardon me for not shedding tears if he is taken out, or for not getting outraged that his supporters were collateral damage.
 
2012-08-16 06:52:45 PM

Nem Wan: How does the definition of organization apply to these groups?


It includes harboring such organizations or persons, so it spreads like a zombie plague.
 
2012-08-16 07:05:46 PM
The butthurt will be simply epic, maybe of biblical proportions when they start arming drones here in the good ole' USA.
Supposedly unarmed platforms are up now, in yer base.
 
2012-08-17 04:14:17 AM
Drones killing innocent people just to get at guilty people? Now that's...
farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2012-08-18 01:22:10 AM
Good grief all the short-sighted comments....

Hint: eventually all Nations will have this technology.
 
2012-08-18 04:21:55 PM
It is not illegal when we do it.
 
Displayed 32 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 »






Report