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  
•       •       •

9766 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
 
2012-08-16 08:59:21 AM
If we kill enemy combantants of an international movement, outside the standard nation-state, who are making war upon a nation-state, drone killing are not illegal.

/Would they prefer B-52 carpet bombing?
 
2012-08-16 09:09:08 AM
Drone killings are illegal where there is a chance that someone can be extracted without loss of life for the extraction team.

These people are at war against the United States. They are actively planning attacks against our military and our citizens. These people have no problems with dying or committing suicide for a successful attack. When you are in a war, you kill your enemy.

And yes, even US citizens who participate are open to drone attacks. No one biatched at Lincoln for the confederate troops death even though they were American citizens (Union did not recognize the Confederacy).
 
2012-08-16 09:09:09 AM
The US has been murdering foreign nationals for decades now. The only difference now is that they don't have to send CIA teams in to do it any more.

An asshole bully nation will remain so as technology advances.
 
2012-08-16 09:29:40 AM

BurnShrike: An asshole bully nation murderous cult will remain so as technology advances opportunities are available.


Fixed it for you.

/Remember the Cole.
//Remember 9/11.
///Remember the US Embassy bombings in Africa.
 
2012-08-16 09:42:26 AM
img36.imageshack.us

Drones are killing people? Why exactly aren't we just nerve stapling them?
 
2012-08-16 09:44:10 AM

cman: Drone killings are illegal where there is a chance that someone can be extracted without loss of life for the extraction team.

These people are at war against the United States. They are actively planning attacks against our military and our citizens. These people have no problems with dying or committing suicide for a successful attack. When you are in a war, you kill your enemy.

And yes, even US citizens who participate are open to drone attacks. No one biatched at Lincoln for the confederate troops death even though they were American citizens (Union did not recognize the Confederacy).




To elaborate slightly, when you have someone like me defending President Obama, a man who really does not like him, you know that your position is wrong
 
2012-08-16 09:53:19 AM
When a Republican does it. Duh.
 
2012-08-16 10:07:17 AM
when Obama is in power
 
2012-08-16 10:08:04 AM
bees
 
2012-08-16 10:10:13 AM
Mmm. This should be an interesting thread. This is one of those issues divides real liberals from party-line Democrats.
 
2012-08-16 10:10:59 AM

cman: Drone killings are illegal where there is a chance that someone can be extracted without loss of life for the extraction team.


The are illegal when they are outside the bounds of the AUMF. They are legal when the President deems you are a member of a nation, state, or organization that perpetrated or abided the 9/11 attacks and in his estimation, blowing your shiat up would help prevent it from happening again.

Thats the law.
 
2012-08-16 10:11:14 AM

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


real liberals can suck it. Obama's in power
 
2012-08-16 10:11:58 AM
when we say they aren't, i guess.
 
2012-08-16 10:12:06 AM
If they aren't on US soil, f*ck them. Citizen or not, you leave US territory, you become a potential target and deserve no mercy. Don't want to die? Immigrate to the US.
 
2012-08-16 10:12:20 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-16 10:12:35 AM

Rent Party: cman: Drone killings are illegal where there is a chance that someone can be extracted without loss of life for the extraction team.


The are illegal when they are outside the bounds of the AUMF. They are legal when the President deems you are a member of a nation, state, or organization that perpetrated or abided the 9/11 attacks and in his estimation, blowing your shiat up would help prevent it from happening again.

Thats the law.


You are correct. Thank you for your post
 
2012-08-16 10:13:11 AM
Legal according what laws...

Is the constitution the supreme law of our land or is international law?
 
2012-08-16 10:15:22 AM
They are only illegal when North Korea or Iran do them.
 
2012-08-16 10:15:25 AM
"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.
 
2012-08-16 10:15:48 AM
Obama is the only Nobel Peace Prize recipient who maintains a "kill list."

Let that sink in for a minute...
 
2012-08-16 10:16:09 AM
You require more vespian gas!
 
2012-08-16 10:17:02 AM
"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,
 
2012-08-16 10:18:02 AM
obummer is a criminal, if we allow it to continue to write executive orders we will all be in gitmo before it is evicted from the white house!
 
2012-08-16 10:18:50 AM

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
 
2012-08-16 10:19:08 AM

fredsnake: obummer is a criminal, if we allow it to continue to write executive orders we will all be in gitmo before it is evicted from the whiteBLACK HOUSE

 
2012-08-16 10:19:19 AM

GAT_00: When a Republican does it. Duh.


It appears as though you have it backwards: When a Democratic President does it, they're perfectly fine, even if they're killing American citizens without a trial. If it was a Republican President doing it, there would be significantly more opposition to it.
 
2012-08-16 10:19:57 AM
A better question is "When are drone any killings not Illegal?"

/not much better, but doesn't split hairs about technology
 
2012-08-16 10:21:48 AM

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.
 
2012-08-16 10:21:50 AM

meanmutton: GAT_00: When a Republican does it. Duh.

It appears as though you have it backwards: When a Democratic President does it, they're perfectly fine, even if they're killing American citizens without a trial. If it was a Republican President doing it, there would be significantly more opposition to it.


Why are you under the impression that being an American citizen means the military cannot kill you if you're fighting for an enemy of the US?
 
2012-08-16 10:22:22 AM

AirForceVet: Fixed it for you.


No, he had it right the first time.
 
2012-08-16 10:22:41 AM

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


When killing people in their lands without a declaration of war, I'd say international.
 
2012-08-16 10:22:46 AM

meanmutton: GAT_00: When a Republican does it. Duh.

It appears as though you have it backwards: When a Democratic President does it, they're perfectly fine, even if they're killing American citizens without a trial. If it was a Republican President doing it, there would be significantly more opposition to it.


Don't bother, he's on a roll.
 
2012-08-16 10:23:04 AM
I believe they have been made legal in Ecuador recently.
 
2012-08-16 10:23:14 AM

MBooda: A better question is "When are drone any killings not Illegal?"

/not much better, but doesn't split hairs about technology


when teh military's doin it
 
2012-08-16 10:23:30 AM

meanmutton: GAT_00: When a Republican does it. Duh.

It appears as though you have it backwards: When a Democratic President does it, they're perfectly fine, even if they're killing American citizens without a trial. If it was a Republican President doing it, there would be significantly more opposition to it.


It's okay if we shoot people. We've got a black president.
 
2012-08-16 10:23:53 AM

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


And that's the problem isn't it.

I've got a cousin in Pennsylvania that's about as liberal as it gets- pretty darn disgusted with a lot of the current administration, as much as she wanted to support it. Just like I was pretty darn unhappy with "W", as much as I wanted him to be a good president. Funny thing is how much we agree on how things *should* be, despite party alignment (that's quickly eroding for both of us due to extreme jackassery in Washington) and the couple of philosophical differences that we have.
 
2012-08-16 10:24:02 AM

meanmutton: GAT_00: When a Republican does it. Duh.

It appears as though you have it backwards: When a Democratic President does it, they're perfectly fine, even if they're killing American citizens without a trial. If it was a Republican President doing it, there would be significantly more opposition to it.


It's amazing how fark liberals see the world.
 
2012-08-16 10:24:20 AM

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

When killing people in their lands without a declaration of war, I'd say international.


Go read the 9/11 AUMF and get back to us when you're a bit more educated on the subject.
 
2012-08-16 10:24:26 AM
If it's not in the USA and used to take out al qaeda thugs, I say go for it.

Of course the teabaggers all cry because we are not reading vicious killers their Miranda rights, but somebody has to help keep America safe.
 
2012-08-16 10:25:00 AM

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

And that's the problem isn't it.

I've got a cousin in Pennsylvania that's about as liberal as it gets- pretty darn disgusted with a lot of the current administration, as much as she wanted to support it. Just like I was pretty darn unhappy with "W", as much as I wanted him to be a good president. Funny thing is how much we agree on how things *should* be, despite party alignment (that's quickly eroding for both of us due to extreme jackassery in Washington) and the couple of philosophical differences that we have.


Yeah, I bet someone who's "about as liberal as it gets" is itching to go out and vote for Mitt Romney.
 
2012-08-16 10:25:36 AM

stirfrybry: meanmutton: GAT_00: When a Republican does it. Duh.

It appears as though you have it backwards: When a Democratic President does it, they're perfectly fine, even if they're killing American citizens without a trial. If it was a Republican President doing it, there would be significantly more opposition to it.

It's amazing how fark liberals see the world.


Without the assistance of Fox News? That is a scary thought.
 
2012-08-16 10:25:53 AM

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

And that's the problem isn't it.

I've got a cousin in Pennsylvania that's about as liberal as it gets- pretty darn disgusted with a lot of the current administration, as much as she wanted to support it. Just like I was pretty darn unhappy with "W", as much as I wanted him to be a good president. Funny thing is how much we agree on how things *should* be, despite party alignment (that's quickly eroding for both of us due to extreme jackassery in Washington) and the couple of philosophical differences that we have.

Yeah, I bet someone who's "about as liberal as it gets" is itching to go out and vote for Mitt Romney.


*snort*

Good one!
 
2012-08-16 10:26:01 AM
Ones that dont get leaked
 
2012-08-16 10:26:32 AM
Also, conservatives complaining about drones strikes and assassinations is hilarious.

Please, you disingenuous twats. Please don't pretend that you care about rights and laws. We both know you don't give a fark, so please don't insult my intelligence, okay?
 
2012-08-16 10:27:06 AM

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.
 
2012-08-16 10:27:27 AM

Jake Havechek: If it's not in the USA and used to take out al qaeda thugs, I say go for it.

Of course the teabaggers all cry because we are not reading vicious killers their Miranda rights, but somebody has to help keep America safe.


Wut? Are you on drugs?
 
2012-08-16 10:27:28 AM

Rent Party:
The are illegal when they are outside the bounds of the AUMF. They are legal when the President deems you are a member of a nation, state, or organization that perpetrated or abided the 9/11 attacks and in his estimation, blowing your shiat up would help prevent it from happening again.

Thats the law.


This. Everything is perfectly legal. The headline is asking the wrong question.
 
2012-08-16 10:28:31 AM
Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
 
2012-08-16 10:29:33 AM

meanmutton: GAT_00: When a Republican does it. Duh.

It appears as though you have it backwards: When a Democratic President does it, they're perfectly fine, even if they're killing American citizens without a trial. If it was a Republican President doing it, there would be significantly more opposition to it.


No, it's straight up illegal. The people biatching the loudest tend to be Republicans who, as always, are worthless farking hypocrites.
 
2012-08-16 10:30:15 AM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Jake Havechek: If it's not in the USA and used to take out al qaeda thugs, I say go for it.

Of course the teabaggers all cry because we are not reading vicious killers their Miranda rights, but somebody has to help keep America safe.

Wut? Are you on drugs?


That was one of the complaints about the al-Awlaki killing - for some reason people believed that 'due process' in this case meant treating everything like criminal prosecutions rather than war powers.
 
2012-08-16 10:30:18 AM

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.
 
2012-08-16 10:31:10 AM
Is it wrong that I really want to fly one of those things and shoot missles from it? I mean, I wouldn't have to shoot someone on the kill list (but,hey everything is negotiable), even just a goat or a cow or heck even a tree.
 
2012-08-16 10:32:19 AM

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

real liberals can suck it. Obama's in power


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 Korea. If you disagree that's great but don't try to frame the question as if something new is going on.
 
2012-08-16 10:32:21 AM
As Uncle Adolph was wont to point out, technology has a tendency to drift away from its origins and into poorer hands. Opinions may vary when the shoe is on the other foot.
 
2012-08-16 10:32:47 AM

AirForceVet: If we kill enemy combantants of an international movement, outside the standard nation-state, who are making war upon a nation-state, drone killing are not illegal.

/Would they prefer B-52 carpet bombing?


Yes.

Make war so terrible no one wants any part of it.

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

/vet
 
2012-08-16 10:33:41 AM

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.

With time, that's getting pretty thin.

There is a push to create new authority that doesn't require relevance to 9/11. This is a classic example of mission creep. A power that was an extraordinary response to an extraordinary event is now desired for ordinary use.
 
2012-08-16 10:34:04 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Yes.

Make war so terrible no one wants any part of it.


Yes, the biggest problem with fighting the war on terror is that we're not causing enough emotional trauma to our servicemembers. Good catch.
 
2012-08-16 10:34:30 AM

sprawl15: Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


That's US law. Killing people overseas would fall under international law. Which is what the article addresses.
 
2012-08-16 10:35:35 AM

Voiceofreason01: Jon iz teh kewl: James F. Campbell: Mmm. This should be an interesting thread. This is one of those issues divides real liberals from party-line Democrats.

real liberals can suck it. Obama's in power

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 Korea. If you disagree that's great but don't try to frame the question as if something new is going on.


clap your hands

c438342.r42.cf2.rackcdn.com
 
2012-08-16 10:35:51 AM
But.........what if the smart dudes at MIT figure out AI, and put that in drones?

Then I'd start worrying.
 
2012-08-16 10:36:06 AM
Should have Lincoln been impeached for ordering US troops to attack American citizens who were confederate soldiers?

No. No one would be biatching about "Due process". They were in rebellion against the United States. These American citizens in al-Qaeda are in rebellion against the United States. Must I put it more simpler than that?

Christ, people.
 
2012-08-16 10:37:11 AM

GAT_00: When a Republican does it. Duh.


DING!

It might be worth it to elect Romney just so someone calls a stop to some of the drone madness.
 
2012-08-16 10:37:12 AM

Mr Guy: meanmutton: GAT_00: When a Republican does it. Duh.

It appears as though you have it backwards: When a Democratic President does it, they're perfectly fine, even if they're killing American citizens without a trial. If it was a Republican President doing it, there would be significantly more opposition to it.

It's okay if we shoot people. We've got a black president.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-08-16 10:37:18 AM
I would have considerably less of a problem with drone strikes if they were treated in all respects as acts of war (which, frankly, they are: perhaps not the first thing that comes to mind when people think of war, but war nonetheless).

That's not to say that I don't have a problem with acts of war, but the consequences of treating drone strikes as acts of war would, in turn, provide considerable safeguards against the misuse of drones. The transparently self-serving "creative interpretation" of the Obama Administration, which maintains that these are not acts of war, provides no such safeguards.
 
2012-08-16 10:38:20 AM

Jake Havechek: But.........what if the smart dudes at MIT figure out AI, and put that in drones?

Then I'd start worrying.


Rush Limbaugh would be the first target of an AI drone, I'm guessing.
 
2012-08-16 10:38:25 AM

James F. Campbell: This is one of those issues divides real liberals from party-line Democrats.


I remember the people jumping from the towers on 9/11. I'm a liberal and a Democrat.
I also remember people dancing in the streets over there.
 
2012-08-16 10:40:47 AM

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.
 
2012-08-16 10:40:49 AM

fireclown: GAT_00: When a Republican does it. Duh.

DING!

It might be worth it to elect Romney just so someone calls a stop to some of the drone madness.


That's one of the funniest things I've seen today. Kudos!
 
2012-08-16 10:40:54 AM

sprawl15: StoPPeRmobile: Yes.

Make war so terrible no one wants any part of it.

Yes, the biggest problem with fighting the war on terror is that we're not causing enough emotional trauma to our servicemembers. Good catch.


sprawl15: StoPPeRmobile: Yes.

Make war so terrible no one wants any part of it.

Yes, the biggest problem with fighting the war on terror is that we're not causing enough emotional trauma to our servicemembers. Good catch.


You do realize that service is completely voluntary?

/vet
 
2012-08-16 10:41:15 AM

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

Let that sink in for a minute...



Are they asking for their prize back yet? No? Why is that?
 
2012-08-16 10:41:22 AM
Isn't why subby capitalized "illegal" in the thread title the real issue we should be focusing on here?
 
2012-08-16 10:41:39 AM
That was weird.

/fark that preview button
 
2012-08-16 10:42:35 AM

StoPPeRmobile: You do realize that service is completely voluntary?


Grouse yarn, mate.
 
2012-08-16 10:44:22 AM

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...
 
2012-08-16 10:45:52 AM

Jake Havechek: Then I'd start worrying.


I believe that autonomous drones are inevitable.
 
2012-08-16 10:46:14 AM

StoPPeRmobile: AirForceVet: If we kill enemy combantants of an international movement, outside the standard nation-state, who are making war upon a nation-state, drone killing are not illegal.

/Would they prefer B-52 carpet bombing?

Yes.

Make war so terrible no one wants any part of it.

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

/vet


You know, one could say that carpet bombing is chicken-shiat, cowardly, remote murdering.
 
2012-08-16 10:47:11 AM
Wouldn't killing a drone just be property damage? I mean it is not alive, right......

umm... wait... let me read that again...
 
2012-08-16 10:47:44 AM
When America does them?
 
2012-08-16 10:47:56 AM
I don't see the difference between using a drone or a manned aircraft to fire a missile. The only difference between a drone and an F-16 is how much risk the pilot is taking. And that's not a good argument against the use of drones.

I think "Should the CIA and other non-military agencies be operating armed drones?" is a better question.
 
2012-08-16 10:48:47 AM

Kurmudgeon: James F. Campbell: This is one of those issues divides real liberals from party-line Democrats.

I remember the people jumping from the towers on 9/11. I'm a liberal and a Democrat.
I also remember people dancing in the streets over there.


i.imgur.com

/too soon??
//welcome to Fark....
 
2012-08-16 10:49:07 AM

Parmenius: 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...


I wouldn't have a problem 'whacking terrorists" if there was some sort of process... a due process.. as to determine who is a terrorist.

Being accused of a crime now leads to immediate execution reviewable by nobody
 
2012-08-16 10:49:13 AM

Kurmudgeon: James F. Campbell: This is one of those issues divides real liberals from party-line Democrats.

I remember the people jumping from the towers on 9/11. I'm a liberal and a Democrat.
I also remember people dancing in the streets over there.


That makes you comfortable with giving President Obama the power to kill someone without even a FISA court? The problem is not the drones, I prefer a surgical strike to one that is more likely to cause collateral damage. The problem is there is NO known oversight on their use.
 
2012-08-16 10:49:35 AM

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

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


Because they need you. They look up to you.
 
2012-08-16 10:50:22 AM

cman: Drone killings are illegal where there is a chance that someone can be extracted without loss of life for the extraction team.

These people are at war against the United States. They are actively planning attacks against our military and our citizens. These people have no problems with dying or committing suicide for a successful attack. When you are in a war, you kill your enemy.

And yes, even US citizens who participate are open to drone attacks. No one biatched at Lincoln for the confederate troops death even though they were American citizens (Union did not recognize the Confederacy).


I don't agree with cman often, but when I do, he's spot-on.
 
2012-08-16 10:51:06 AM

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.
 
2012-08-16 10:51:12 AM

Voiceofreason01: Jon iz teh kewl: James F. Campbell: Mmm. This should be an interesting thread. This is one of those issues divides real liberals from party-line Democrats.

real liberals can suck it. Obama's in power

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
 
2012-08-16 10:52:02 AM
FTFA:Torture, for example, is absolutely prohibited in international law at all times, in war and peace.

Yet the U.S. uses tort...sorry...I mean "enhanced interrogation". Why would a country like that care about the morality of combat drone usage? A weapon that, for example, Germany contemplates not to buy/build/use due to ethical concerns. And you know a weapon is really ethically questionable if even the Germans won't touch it. The US lost the last remaining feet of its morale high ground during the years of the Bush administration. Every other country in the first world knows that. Only a U.S. American can be surprised by finding out that his country constantly violates the very values it claims to stand for.
 
2012-08-16 10:52:06 AM

Parmenius: It's interesting that countries with a capable government and security apparatus don't have drone strikes happening inside them.


As I said, they would have a much bigger political hammer to swing. If we bombed an al Qaeda base in Ottowa (without pre-approval), Canada could cause a lot more problems for us politically than if we did the same in Lebanon.

Parmenius: Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan have huge difficulty asserting sovereignty in any sense, and the result is "ungoverned space" that the baddies use to their advantage.


Yemen has been working with us. Pakistan has as well, in a limited extent. Somalia's a total clusterfark.

Parmenius: 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!


Governance of the space does not change our ability to wage war. It only changes the political fallout.
 
2012-08-16 10:52:50 AM

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.
 
2012-08-16 10:54:35 AM

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.


As I said, that's pretty thin. It's a mockery of the idea that this is legal authority, that a so-called militant may newly associate with people with over 10 years after 9/11, and someone in the U.S. intelligence community can play Six Infinite Degrees of Kevin Bacon Osama bin Laden and legally target that person under authority granted explicitly because of 9/11 and the specific group that carried out 9/11.
 
2012-08-16 10:54:40 AM
"We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes."

- Barack Obama
 
2012-08-16 10:54:48 AM

cman: These people are at war against the United States.


Because the US comes in and bombs the sh*t out of them. What is their problem?
 
2012-08-16 10:54:53 AM
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.
 
2012-08-16 10:57:01 AM
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.
 
2012-08-16 10:57:21 AM
cman: Should have Lincoln been impeached for ordering US troops to attack American citizens who were confederate soldiers?

No. No one would be biatching about "Due process". They were in rebellion against the United States. These American citizens in al-Qaeda are in rebellion against the United States. Must I put it more simpler than that?

Christ, people.


Congress has enumerated powers to handle insurrection or rebellion when "the public safety may require it." A drone strike several thousand miles away against a citizen in a car who may or may not have been involved in planning some failed terrorist attacks against the US is quite a bit broader of a definition "public safety may require it" than several states being in open rebellion.
 
2012-08-16 10:58:11 AM

Name_Omitted: That makes you comfortable with giving President Obama the power to kill someone without even a FISA court? The problem is not the drones, I prefer a surgical strike to one that is more likely to cause collateral damage. The problem is there is NO known oversight on their use.


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.

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.
 
2012-08-16 10:58:15 AM

MugzyBrown: "We are a nation of laws whose commitment to justice is so enduring that we would treat a gunman and give him due process, just as surely as we will see that he pays for his crimes."

- Barack Obama


www.myfacewhen.net

"Law enforcement and military actions operate on different principles. More at 11."
 
2012-08-16 10:58:27 AM

urban.derelict: cman: These people are at war against the United States.

Because the US comes in and bombs the sh*t out of them. What is their problem?


americafyeah.com
 
2012-08-16 10:58:29 AM

cman: No. No one would be biatching about "Due process". They were in rebellion against the United States. These American citizens in al-Qaeda are in rebellion against the United States. Must I put it more simpler than that?

Christ, people.


right, 19 guys with boxcutters outsmarted the US military, ooooooookay.

/it wasn't the brown people
//it was the white people..
/yeah they like to hide behind laws they write
//racist laws, didn't i mention that before? tinyurl.com/1mn Rmoney made his riches off prohibition of cannabis, Utah was the FIRST STATE in the nation to outlaw it
 
2012-08-16 10:59:14 AM

cman: Should have Lincoln been impeached for ordering US troops to attack American citizens who were confederate soldiers?

No. No one would be biatching about "Due process". They were in rebellion against the United States. These American citizens in al-Qaeda are in rebellion against the United States. Must I put it more simpler than that?

Christ, people.


BIG TEXT MEANS I MUST BE RIGHT.
 
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.
 
2012-08-16 11:41:22 AM
"It is all bullchit and it is bad for you"
GC
 
2012-08-16 11:42:03 AM

Name_Omitted: 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."


In my opinion, it would be easier to simply get the hell out of the middle east and end the 'war on terror' than to try to cherry pick when it's OK or not OK to kill people.

MugzyBrown: If I google habeas corpus will it also show me how it's constitutional to execute criminals w/o trial or even formal charges?


Yup.

You can start by looking at policemen who are legally authorized to kill people without a trial or formal charges and work your way to the more complicated international cases when you get a handle on the topic.
 
2012-08-16 11:42:06 AM

sprawl15: Illegal and unconstitutional. Google 'habeas corpus'.


Wrong. Google "child moslesting movie director."
 
2012-08-16 11:42:25 AM

BullBearMS: 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.


Well, gosh, that's terrible. We should launch a full out invasion and kill 100,000 innocents. That would be much better, right?
 
2012-08-16 11:43:02 AM

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.

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.


And I don't know why you think there is a difference. Do you actually buy into that Partisan crap?
Meet the new boss, same, same, same
 
2012-08-16 11:43:56 AM

Banned on the Run: U.S. law doesn't distinguish between murder with a sniper rifle or murder with a knife.


Actually, it does. Sort of. It's not really explicit in determining if the charge is 1st or 2nd degree murder, but the closer the kill, the more depraved it is considered. It generally affects sentencing.
 
2012-08-16 11:44:39 AM

qorkfiend: Go read the 9/11 AUMF and get back to us when you're a bit more educated on the subject.


That the one that says "if you're in a land where we happen to be shooting and we even halfway think you're connected to terrorists, then it's legal"?

Yeah. Lots of things are declared illegal after the fact. Ask every wartime president, ever.
 
2012-08-16 11:45:14 AM

snocone: And I don't know why you think there is a difference.


This was my point, genius.
 
2012-08-16 11:46:09 AM

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.

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.


They should like Obamacare, too. Because they're the ones who proposed it - conservatives like Heritage Foundation, not just one-time moderates like Romney.

www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-08-16 11:46:47 AM

arethereanybeernamesleft: snocone: And I don't know why you think there is a difference.

This was my point, genius.


Then say so Mutt.
 
2012-08-16 11:46:57 AM

snocone: 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.

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.

And I don't know why you think there is a difference. Do you actually buy into that Partisan crap?
Meet the new boss, same, same, same



*woooooooooooosh*
 
2012-08-16 11:46:57 AM

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

Let that sink in for a minute...


Teddy Roosevelt would like a word with you, but unfortunately he's dead
 
2012-08-16 11:47:43 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.


Drones are not really the issue addressed by TFA. That word was just headline-bait. TFA discusses, at great and vague length, when killing by military force is legal under international law. Only in the next to last paragraph does it give a cogent answer:

"Today, the United States is engaged in armed conflict only in Afghanistan. To lawfully resort to military force elsewhere requires that the country where the United States is attacking has first attacked the United States (such as Afghanistan in 2001), the U.N. Security Council has authorized the resort to force (Libya in 2011) or a government in effective control credibly requests assistance in a civil war (Afghanistan since 2002)."
 
2012-08-16 11:49:09 AM

vygramul: 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.

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.

They should like Obamacare, too. Because they're the ones who proposed it - conservatives like Heritage Foundation, not just one-time moderates like Romney.

[www.bitlogic.com image 472x800]



Inexplicable and hypocritical opposition to a President from the Other Party only started when we elected a black President.

Got it.
 
2012-08-16 11:49:35 AM

arethereanybeernamesleft: Wrong. Google "child moslesting movie director."


Polanski showed for his court case, and was there up until sentencing when he bailed. That's not a trial in absentia. Go take your medicine.
 
2012-08-16 11:53:16 AM

sprawl15: Why?


Because citizens are afforded protection by and from the US government. We are or maybe at war with other humans. These other humans are citizens of sovereign nations and not under the authority of the USA. The USA has no standing to impose or afford its American "values" or "rights" on the citizens of other sovereign nations. We aren't asserting authority over these humans in my view but are at war with them. Asserting authority and war they are not the same thing, far from it.
 
2012-08-16 11:53:20 AM

sprawl15: That's not a trial in absentia.


Sentencing isn't part of a trial? And he's only one example, there have been lots of trials where the defendant fled before evidence was closed.

Besides, we're at war, remember? The government assures us that for our own safety, the regular rules don't apply.

Although I doubt so much as a single Muslim has ever set foot on my part of Pisgah Ridge, so I can't make that same leap.
 
2012-08-16 11:54:00 AM

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

Let that sink in for a minute...

Teddy Roosevelt would like a word with you, but unfortunately he's dead


Are you trying to suggest that death isn't stopping TR from maintaining kill lists of some type?

?
 
2012-08-16 11:54:04 AM

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.

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.


It also ignores the fact that we have refused to hold any of the people responsible for torture accountable for their actions, even though this is a violation of treaties we have adopted and the laws of the US

Even the people who knowingly destroyed video taped evidence of torture were protected by Obama.

In an interview with the Austrian newspaper Der Standard, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Manfred Nowak, explained that Obama's grant of immunity is likely a violation of international law.

As a party to the UN Convention Against Torture, the U.S. is obligated to investigate and prosecute U.S. citizens that are believed to have engaged in torture.

The United States has, like all other Contracting Parties to the UN Convention Against Torture, committed itself to investigate instances of torture and to prosecute all cases in which credible evidence of torture is found.

Indeed, Article 2 of the convention on torture explains that "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever" can be used to legally justify torture. Further, the convention states that an "order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."


Remember that Obama promise that there would be "no more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient"? Apparently, he doesn't.

Then there is the part where we have continued the Bush policy of sending people overseas to be tortured.

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, administration officials said Monday.

Human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying that continuing the practice, known as rendition, would still allow the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture. They said that promises from other countries of humane treatment, called "diplomatic assurances," were no protection against abuse.

"It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture," said Amrit Singh, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.
 
2012-08-16 11:55:21 AM

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.
 
2012-08-16 11:58:32 AM

odinsposse: sprawl15: Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

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


Fortunately for Americans, only US law governs US actions, and only US law is applicable to US actions. "International law" can go DIAF in that regard.
 
2012-08-16 11:59:55 AM

arethereanybeernamesleft: Sentencing isn't part of a trial?


It's not the part of the trial that requires someone be present. A person must either be brought before the court or that person officially waive their right to be in front of that court to satisfy their habeas corpus rights. Polanski was brought before the court. al Awlaki was not.

Tyee: Because citizens are afforded protection by and from the US government.


Do you think that a foreign national that commits a crime within the borders of the US receives constitutional protections in their prosecution (say, a Brit gets drunk and punches someone), or are we allowed to treat them however the hell we want because their passport is foreign?

Tyee: We aren't asserting authority over these humans in my view but are at war with them.


I consider lobbing a bomb at someone 'asserting authority'. You'll have to work to convince me otherwise.
 
2012-08-16 12:05:38 PM
When clandestine military actions inside sovereign nations with no regard for the consent of the people are more important than quaint pretenses like "rule of law" and "separation of powers".

Duh.
 
2012-08-16 12:06:04 PM

sprawl15: person officially waive their right to be in front of that court to satisfy their habeas corpus rights


I don't know what to tell you big boy, but there are several convictions that have been upheld where the Defendant did not "officially" waive his right to be present in court.

snocone: Then say so Mutt.


I did. Clearly.

I said: He's the same as Bush

You said: There's no difference between the two.

BigNumber12 has a message for you:

BigNumber12: *woooooooooooosh*


.
 
2012-08-16 12:08:26 PM

BullBearMS: Even the people who knowingly destroyed video taped evidence of torture were protected by Obama.


Not to quote myself, but I should have pointed out who the Obama administration did decide to prosecute related to our nations decision to torture people.

The CIA whistle-blower who made our use of torture public knowledge was prosecuted.

The people who did the actual torturing and covered it up were not.
 
2012-08-16 12:08:26 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: I don't know what to tell you big boy, but there are several convictions that have been upheld where the Defendant did not "officially" waive his right to be present in court.


You could start by linking an example.

That you started with Polanski, though, pretty much shows that you're full of shiat.
 
2012-08-16 12:11:41 PM

sprawl15: or are we allowed to treat them however the hell we want because their passport is foreign?


The countries have treaties and agreements on how they treat criminals, and these are different circumstances than acts of war, irrelevant.

I consider lobbing a bomb at someone 'asserting authority'. You'll have to work to convince me otherwise.

Asserting authority is forcing you to live or behave in the desired manner by use of repercussions or strength. Lobbing a bomb is an attempt at making you dead, the dead have long since and never been able to behave in any manner other than dead. If you survive the lobbing and an attempt to occupy and control the area is made that I would agree would be and attempt at asserting authority.
You/I the USA has no control or authority over the dead, you can't make them do anything but vote in Chicago.
 
2012-08-16 12:16:52 PM

Tyee: The countries have treaties and agreements on how they treat criminals, and these are different circumstances than acts of war, irrelevant.


Wrong. The treaties determine extradition requirements and lay additional restrictions on how we act. If we find someone without a passport and can't find a country to extradite him to, we aren't allowed to just shoot him in the streets. He receives full Constitutional protections, as he is a human being under asserted authority of the United States government.

Tyee: Asserting authority is forcing you to live or behave in the desired manner by use of repercussions or strength. Lobbing a bomb is an attempt at making you dead, the dead have long since and never been able to behave in any manner other than dead.


By this definition, police spraying bullets into protestors isn't an assertion of authority but launching tear gas into the crowd is.

I think I'll pass on accepting your silly ideas.
 
2012-08-16 12:20:03 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."


Oh, horseshiat. We have NO obligation not to bomb an area with women and children unless we can prove the women and children are NOT combatants! Remember Viet Nam? I guaran-farking-tee you the women and children were every bit as much combatants there as the men. How do I know? Because I know too many Viet Nam vets who witnessed it firsthand, having little 7 or 8 year old kids toss grenades in vehicle gas tanks and shiat like that.

This war/conflict/whatever you want to call it is no different - women blowing themselves up in crowds of soldiers and civilians, little preteens and teens shooting at soldiers or blowing themselves up, little kids chucking grenades. When the author of that bit can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that not one of those people was engaged in planting IEDs, shooting people, building bombs, financing terrorism, sending a kid off to be a suicide bomber or preparing to be a suicide bomber themselves, then I'll agree it was legitimate mass murder. Otherwise, accidents happen and it's called collateral damage.

When they start being outraged over the DELIBERATE bombing of civilians by - as some so eloquently put it - "the brown people," then they can biatch at the US and allied forces when bad intel results in a fark up. Until then, they can damn well cry and rant about the guys who deliberately murder their own people.

The idiot who wrote TFA is a clueless academic who's never been near a war zone. I have little to no use for Obama, but will defend him to my dying breath on this one.
 
2012-08-16 12:20:28 PM

Tyee:
Asserting authority is forcing you to live or behave in the desired manner by use of repercussions or strength.


War is an attempt to impose a political solution. Or as Clauswitz put it "War is politics by other means."

If those folks lived or behaved in our desired manner, we wouldn't be lobbing bombs at them. If they start to live and behave in our desired manner, we will cease to lob bombs at them.
 
2012-08-16 12:21:09 PM

BurnShrike: The US has been murdering foreign nationals for decades now. The only difference now is that they don't have to send CIA teams in to do it any more.

An asshole bully nation will remain so as technology advances.


This is what some people actually believe.
 
2012-08-16 12:25:16 PM

MBooda: A better question is "When are drone any killings not Illegal?"

/not much better, but doesn't split hairs about technology


When they are conducted in self defense, legitimate revolution, the killing of animals to obtain food, etc.
 
2012-08-16 12:26:51 PM

cman: Rent Party: cman: Drone killings are illegal where there is a chance that someone can be extracted without loss of life for the extraction team.


The are illegal when they are outside the bounds of the AUMF. They are legal when the President deems you are a member of a nation, state, or organization that perpetrated or abided the 9/11 attacks and in his estimation, blowing your shiat up would help prevent it from happening again.

Thats the law.

You are correct. Thank you for your post


Proof that 9/11 was more than a jet-fuel-induced burning of a steel structure

Here we are again. 9/11 = justified terrorism on the USA's part. Terrorism, by definition, is using violence to alter the way of life of your target.

Drone killings of 4,400 people fit that definition. Precisely.

it's not terrorism when the USA does it though. Even when they are about to do it to their own civil population. Tell me I'm wrong. The existence of Trapwire and the Domain Awareness System in NYC are proof positive.

But You don't want to hear this, because... welll.. 'Murica.. Fuk Yea!1!

/cue the straw-man hatred.
//Wanna borrow my tinfoil?
 
2012-08-16 12:28:32 PM

Aigoo: Oh, horseshiat. We have NO obligation not to bomb an area with women and children unless we can prove the women and children are NOT combatants! Remember Viet Nam? I guaran-farking-tee you the women and children were every bit as much combatants there as the men. How do I know? Because I know too many Viet Nam vets who witnessed it firsthand, having little 7 or 8 year old kids toss grenades in vehicle gas tanks and shiat like that.

This war/conflict/whatever you want to call it is no different - women blowing themselves up in crowds of soldiers and civilians, little preteens and teens shooting at soldiers or blowing themselves up, little kids chucking grenades. When the author of that bit can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that not one of those people was engaged in planting IEDs, shooting people, building bombs, financing terrorism, sending a kid off to be a suicide bomber or preparing to be a suicide bomber themselves, then I'll agree it was legitimate mass murder. Otherwise, accidents happen and it's called collateral damage.



So just kill them all, right? Better to be safe - after all, they could be terrorists.

After all, it helped us win the war in Vietnam, so why not keep doing it now?! For that matter, you know who was really good at winning wars? Genghis Khan! If we could just revive the reliable, time-tested tactic of wiping out villages as we encounter them, we wouldn't have to deal with this irritating "urban combat" situation at all!
 
2012-08-16 12:37:50 PM

Name_Omitted: 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.


As Sprawl mentioned, the 'kill list' is basically a list of military targets; traditionally speaking the standard has always been lower for military action than criminal investigation and trial. Our ability to identify a US Citizen living among and assisting hostile combatants, making him a hostile combatant himself, is fairly new. Before we'd just blow the shiat out of them all and then go 'Huh, he was a dirty traitor', assuming we even recognized the body.

Don't want to end up on a kill list? Don't hang around terrorists with a specific beef against the USA and a history of making attacks on the USA. Especially don't renounce the USA while doing so, supporting said terrorists.
 
2012-08-16 12:37:56 PM
/subby
//you're welcome
 
2012-08-16 12:41:41 PM

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.

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.


For the life of me, I don't know why Democrats like Obama. If teh Bushiatler was evil incarnate, what possible defense do they have for the guy who continued or escalated his policies?
One guy prompts a million derp march in Washington, the other gets a farkin' Nobel Peace Prize--and all for the same shiat.
 
2012-08-16 12:43:23 PM

TiiiMMMaHHH: cman: Rent Party: cman: Drone killings are illegal where there is a chance that someone can be extracted without loss of life for the extraction team.


The are illegal when they are outside the bounds of the AUMF. They are legal when the President deems you are a member of a nation, state, or organization that perpetrated or abided the 9/11 attacks and in his estimation, blowing your shiat up would help prevent it from happening again.

Thats the law.

You are correct. Thank you for your post

Proof that 9/11 was more than a jet-fuel-induced burning of a steel structure

Here we are again. 9/11 = justified terrorism on the USA's part. Terrorism, by definition, is using violence to alter the way of life of your target.

Drone killings of 4,400 people fit that definition. Precisely.

it's not terrorism when the USA does it though. Even when they are about to do it to their own civil population. Tell me I'm wrong. The existence of Trapwire and the Domain Awareness System in NYC are proof positive.

But You don't want to hear this, because... welll.. 'Murica.. Fuk Yea!1!

/cue the straw-man hatred.
//Wanna borrow my tinfoil?


Oh wow, another Truther appears before me.

I must insist that your movement is 199% wrong. You guys are ignoring the Reptilian Jewish bankers who rule this world. Open your mind and learn
 
2012-08-16 12:44:58 PM
Lots of derp and fail in this thread.

Lots.
 
2012-08-16 12:45:23 PM
 
2012-08-16 12:47:22 PM

cman: cman: Drone killings are illegal where there is a chance that someone can be extracted without loss of life for the extraction team.

These people are at war against the United States. They are actively planning attacks against our military and our citizens. These people have no problems with dying or committing suicide for a successful attack. When you are in a war, you kill your enemy.

And yes, even US citizens who participate are open to drone attacks. No one biatched at Lincoln for the confederate troops death even though they were American citizens (Union did not recognize the Confederacy).



To elaborate slightly, when you have someone like me defending President Obama, a man who really does not like him, you know that your position is wrong


Racist.
 
2012-08-16 12:47:41 PM
Don't worry.

The Executive Branch is using this power only when they have to, and reviewed each case on it's merits.
 
2012-08-16 12:49:36 PM

BigNumber12: So just kill them all, right? Better to be safe - after all, they could be terrorists.


At least he's logically consistent enough to favor killing innocent women and children no matter which political party is in charge.

It's the Politics tab tards who suddenly change their opinion depending on which political party is in charge that piss me off.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-08-16 12:49:51 PM

BigNumber12: So just kill them all, right? Better to be safe - after all, they could be terrorists.

After all, it helped us win the war in Vietnam, so why not keep doing it now?!


i512.photobucket.com

It was a tie.
 
2012-08-16 12:53:34 PM

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


I guess you're special. Usually that gets people banned for a day. Unless it's just me.
 
2012-08-16 12:55:29 PM

BullBearMS: 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.


Seems sexist.
 
2012-08-16 12:58:59 PM

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?
 
2012-08-16 12:59:05 PM

Firethorn: Name_Omitted: 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.

As Sprawl mentioned, the 'kill list' is basically a list of military targets; traditionally speaking the standard has always been lower for military action than criminal investigation and trial. Our ability to identify a US Citizen living among and assisting hostile combatants, making him a hostile combatant himself, is fairly new. Before we'd just blow the shiat out of them all and then go 'Huh, he was a dirty traitor', assuming we even recognized the body.

Don't want to end up on a kill list? Don't hang around terrorists with a specific beef against the USA and a history of making attacks on the USA. Especially don't renounce the USA while doing so, supporting said terrorists.


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.

Polly Ester: 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.

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.

For the life of me, I don't know why Democrats like Obama. If teh Bushiatler was evil incarnate, what possible defense do they have for the guy who continued or escalated his policies?
One guy prompts a million derp march in Washington, the other gets a farkin' Nobel Peace Prize--and all for the same shiat.


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.
 
2012-08-16 01:08:41 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?


Still,
Be prepared for a time out.
I've been made to sit in the corner for less.
 
2012-08-16 01:14:11 PM

BullBearMS: BullBearMS: Even the people who knowingly destroyed video taped evidence of torture were protected by Obama.

Not to quote myself, but I should have pointed out who the Obama administration did decide to prosecute related to our nations decision to torture people.

The CIA whistle-blower who made our use of torture public knowledge was prosecuted.

The people who did the actual torturing and covered it up were not.


They might as well pardon Sandusky and make him head of the Department of Education.
 
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 232 of 232 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report