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  
•       •       •

9772 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Aug 2012 at 10:06 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-16 10:30:18 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report