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 42
    More: Scary, Hellfire missile, targeted killings, United Nations Special Rapporteur, sovereign states, lethal force, research professor, right to life, use of force  
•       •       •

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



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-08-16 10:10:13 AM  
5 votes:
Mmm. This should be an interesting thread. This is one of those issues divides real liberals from party-line Democrats.
2012-08-16 09:09:09 AM  
5 votes:
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 08:59:21 AM  
5 votes:
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 10:15:48 AM  
4 votes:
Obama is the only Nobel Peace Prize recipient who maintains a "kill list."

Let that sink in for a minute...
2012-08-16 09:29:40 AM  
4 votes:

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 11:26:02 AM  
3 votes:
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 10:59:54 AM  
3 votes:
2012-08-16 01:19:00 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:16:53 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:40:47 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:23:53 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:53:19 AM  
2 votes:
When a Republican does it. Duh.
2012-08-16 09:09:08 AM  
2 votes:
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 01:14:11 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:05:38 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:39:21 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:16:17 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:10:44 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:59:27 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:58:27 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:57:01 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:54:53 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:48:47 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:47:56 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:38:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:37:18 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:33:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:28:31 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:27:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:27 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:27:06 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:26:32 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:22:41 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:21:50 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:19:57 AM  
1 votes:
A better question is "When are drone any killings not Illegal?"

/not much better, but doesn't split hairs about technology
2012-08-16 10:19:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:19:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:18:50 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:11:58 AM  
1 votes:
when we say they aren't, i guess.
2012-08-16 10:11:14 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:07:17 AM  
1 votes:
when Obama is in power
2012-08-16 09:42:26 AM  
1 votes:
img36.imageshack.us

Drones are killing people? Why exactly aren't we just nerve stapling them?
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report