PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Obama administration pushed for "drone rulebook" during the election.


Direckshun
11-25-2012, 01:32 PM
Imagine that.

President Obama and his administration were perfectly fine with the drone program's complete extralegal operation in the shadows with no accountability and no legal red tape guiding their operations to make sure the power to kill people far, far away weren't absolute (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=264338).

Then, the election rolls along. There's a chance that Mitt Romney actually wins the thing, and at this point the Obama administration realizes: maybe it's not a good thing to have limitless, extralegal power to kill with no accountability? I mean, the Republicans aren't us, we can't trust them as much.

Epic fucking facepalm. The realization that accountability needs to be in place to protect us from the other party, rather than to protect the most basic foundations of American jurisprudence, due process, and public service. Just shockingly stupid.

Add into all of this: the Obama administration is seeking a rulebook. Whatever that is. Legal framework? Legal accountability? Better access for oversight? It may not be until another Republican comes close to winning a Presidential election before we find out. Christ.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/world/white-house-presses-for-drone-rule-book.html?pagewanted=all

Election Spurred a Move to Codify U.S. Drone Policy
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: November 24, 2012

WASHINGTON — Facing the possibility that President Obama might not win a second term, his administration accelerated work in the weeks before the election to develop explicit rules for the targeted killing of terrorists by unmanned drones, so that a new president would inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two administration officials.

The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6. But with more than 300 drone strikes and some 2,500 people killed (http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php) by the Central Intelligence Agency and the military since Mr. Obama first took office, the administration is still pushing to make the rules formal and resolve internal uncertainty and disagreement about exactly when lethal action is justified.

Mr. Obama and his advisers are still debating whether remote-control killing should be a measure of last resort against imminent threats to the United States, or a more flexible tool, available to help allied governments attack their enemies or to prevent militants from controlling territory.

Though publicly the administration presents a united front on the use of drones, behind the scenes there is longstanding tension. The Defense Department and the C.I.A. continue to press for greater latitude to carry out strikes; Justice Department and State Department officials, and the president’s counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, have argued for restraint, officials involved in the discussions say.

More broadly, the administration’s legal reasoning has not persuaded many other countries that the strikes are acceptable under international law. For years before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States routinely condemned targeted killings of suspected terrorists by Israel, and most countries still object to such measures.

But since the first targeted killing by the United States in 2002, two administrations have taken the position that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its allies and can legally defend itself by striking its enemies wherever they are found.

Partly because United Nations officials know that the United States is setting a legal and ethical precedent for other countries developing armed drones, the U.N. plans to open a unit in Geneva early next year to investigate American drone strikes.

The attempt to write a formal rule book for targeted killing began last summer after news reports on the drone program (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html), started under President George W. Bush and expanded by Mr. Obama, revealed some details of the president’s role in the shifting procedures for compiling “kill lists” and approving strikes. Though national security officials insist that the process is meticulous and lawful, the president and top aides believe it should be institutionalized, a course of action that seemed particularly urgent when it appeared that Mitt Romney might win the presidency.

“There was concern that the levers might no longer be in our hands,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave an “amorphous” program to his successor, the official said. The effort, which would have been rushed to completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said.

Mr. Obama himself, in little-noticed remarks, has acknowledged that the legal governance of drone strikes is still a work in progress.

“One of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal architecture in place, and we need Congressional help in order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined in but any president’s reined in terms of some of the decisions that we’re making,” Mr. Obama told Jon Stewart in an appearance on “The Daily Show” (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-18-2012/exclusive---barack-obama-extended-interview-pt--1) on Oct. 18.

In an interview with Mark Bowden for a new book on the killing of Osama bin Laden, “The Finish,” Mr. Obama said that “creating a legal structure, processes, with oversight checks on how we use unmanned weapons, is going to be a challenge for me and my successors for some time to come.”

The president expressed wariness of the powerful temptation drones pose to policy makers. “There’s a remoteness to it that makes it tempting to think that somehow we can, without any mess on our hands, solve vexing security problems,” he said.

Despite public remarks by Mr. Obama and his aides on the legal basis for targeted killing, the program remains officially classified. In court, fighting lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and The New York Times seeking secret legal opinions on targeted killings, the government has refused even to acknowledge the existence of the drone program in Pakistan.

But by many accounts, there has been a significant shift in the nature of the targets. In the early years, most strikes were aimed at ranking leaders of Al Qaeda thought to be plotting to attack the United States. That is the purpose Mr. Obama has emphasized, saying in a CNN interview in September (http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/05/obama-reflects-on-drone-warfare/) that drones were used to prevent “an operational plot against the United States” and counter “terrorist networks that target the United States.”

But for at least two years in Pakistan, partly because of the C.I.A.’s success in decimating Al Qaeda’s top ranks, most strikes have been directed at militants whose main battle is with the Pakistani authorities or who fight with the Taliban against American troops in Afghanistan.

In Yemen, some strikes apparently launched by the United States killed militants who were preparing to attack Yemeni military forces. Some of those killed were wearing suicide vests, according to Yemeni news reports.

“Unless they were about to get on a flight to New York to conduct an attack, they were not an imminent threat to the United States,” said Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who is a critic of the strikes. “We don’t say that we’re the counterinsurgency air force of Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, but we are.”

Then there is the matter of strikes against people whose identities are unknown. In an online video chat (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/30/president-obama-hangs-out-america) in January, Mr. Obama spoke of the strikes in Pakistan as “a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists.” But for several years, first in Pakistan and later in Yemen, in addition to “personality strikes” against named terrorists, the C.I.A. and the military have carried out “signature strikes” against groups of suspected, unknown militants.

Originally that term was used to suggest the specific “signature” of a known high-level terrorist, such as his vehicle parked at a meeting place. But the word evolved to mean the “signature” of militants in general — for instance, young men toting arms in an area controlled by extremist groups. Such strikes have prompted the greatest conflict inside the Obama administration, with some officials questioning whether killing unidentified fighters is legally justified or worth the local backlash.

Many people inside and outside the government have argued for far greater candor about all of the strikes, saying excessive secrecy has prevented public debate in Congress or a full explanation of their rationale. Experts say the strikes are deeply unpopular both in Pakistan and Yemen, in part because of allegations of large numbers of civilian casualties, which American officials say are exaggerated.

Gregory D. Johnsen, author of “The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al Qaeda and America’s War in Arabia,” argues that the strike strategy is backfiring in Yemen. “In Yemen, Al Qaeda is actually expanding,” Mr. Johnsen said in a recent talk at the Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/events/2012/11/13-yemen), in part because of the backlash against the strikes.

Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistan-born analyst now at the Atlantic Council in Washington, said the United States should start making public a detailed account of the results of each strike, including any collateral deaths, in part to counter propaganda from jihadist groups. “This is a grand opportunity for the Obama administration to take the drones out of the shadows and to be open about their objectives,” he said.

But the administration appears to be a long way from embracing such openness. The draft rule book for drone strikes that has been passed among agencies over the last several months is so highly classified, officials said, that it is hand-carried from office to office rather than sent by e-mail.

Brainiac
11-25-2012, 02:17 PM
Rep for starting a thread criticizing the Obama administration. Not because it's the Obama administration, but because you recognize that the party you support doesn't always do the right thing.

patteeu
11-25-2012, 02:24 PM
By contrast, the Bush administration developed a rule book and oversight protections for it's non-lethal enhanced interrogation program from the beginning. The idea that the reason for a rule book is to protect us from Republicans is demented.

Direckshun
11-25-2012, 02:33 PM
By contrast, the Bush administration developed a rule book and oversight protections for it's non-lethal enhanced interrogation program from the beginning. The idea that the reason for a rule book is to protect us from Republicans is demented.

As tempting as it would be to be sucked into yet another thread where I expose your insanity and disconnectedness to reality regarding torture, I'll go ahead and agree with your last sentence there.

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 03:41 PM
A drone is a weapon of war. The rules of war should apply to drones.....

If we are at war with a group or a country, then the rules of war should apply...

What needs to be clarified are the rules of war when they apply to American citizens, who leave the united states and join an enemy with whom we are at war. Personally, I feel like if you do this during a time of war, you can (and should) become a valid target / enemy combatant...And clarify that the nemy is the one BREAKING the geneva conventions for fuck's sake.

The thing that sucks is that terror groups with whom we are at war are breaking the Geneva convention, hiding amongst civilians, and recruiting American citizens to join them.

If we stop targeting them because 1) they're hiding among civs, 2) they are US citizens or have US citizens among them, then a successful game plan for THEM becomes very clear, and easy. Alll they have to do is hide amongst civillians or get a few American protestors or citizens to hide amongst them. So we absolutely cannot allow those things to stop us from hitting these targets (with or without drones).

I firmly believe that it isn't drones that are the problem, it is hitting targets who are BREAKING the Geneva convention. We simply have to have a conversation about this as a country...

Do we allow terror groups to successfully use human shields / brainwashed or traitorous American citizens as shields?

Drones are among the most DISCRIMINATING weapon systems we have & to describe them as indiscriminate is completely dishonest.

Personally I would rather have drones do the work than our citizens, but the REAL question is "Do we need to do this work?"

If not, stop it all together. If so, use every single thing in our arsenal (including drones) and call the enemy out for violating the Geneva convention.

Otherwise why fucking bother?

patteeu
11-25-2012, 03:46 PM
As tempting as it would be to be sucked into yet another thread where I expose your insanity and disconnectedness to reality regarding torture, I'll go ahead and agree with your last sentence there.

Rulebook plus oversight for a non-lethal interrogation program - GWBush

No rules or oversight for assassination program that occassionally targets US citizens - BHObama

Whatever your opinion is of the interrogation program, that's a pretty stark contrast.

stonedstooge
11-25-2012, 03:48 PM
Never could understand the liberals crying over torture, but accepting death from the sky as a suitable alternative. Much more humane to kill them instead of torture them?

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 03:51 PM
Never could understand the liberals crying over torture, but accepting death from the sky as a suitable alternative. Much more humane to kill them instead of torture them?

This is a really flawed argument, since killing combatants in the field is legal (Geneva convention) and killing or torturing of captured/prisoners is not.

People who make this argument have no concept of reality.

stonedstooge
11-25-2012, 03:56 PM
This is a really flawed argument, since killing combatants in the field is legal (Geneva convention) and killing or torturing of captured/prisoners is not.

People who make this argument have no concept of reality.

So trying to follow the rule of international law is the reasoning. And I'm the one who has no concept of reality? OK

mlyonsd
11-25-2012, 04:01 PM
Rulebook plus oversight for a non-lethal interrogation program - GWBush

No rules or oversight for assassination program that occassionally targets US citizens - BHObama

Whatever your opinion is of the interrogation program, that's a pretty stark contrast.Ouch.

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 04:04 PM
So trying to follow the rule of international law is the reasoning. And I'm the one who has no concept of reality? OK

So are you suggesting we not follow international law?

Certainly if your stance is ignoring international law, then you wouldn't have a problem with drone strikes against enemy combatants...especially when congress has authorized military action against said enemy.

Even if you pay no mind to int'l law, we are following our own laws.

BigRedChief
11-25-2012, 04:07 PM
Rulebook plus oversight for a non-lethal interrogation program - GWBush

No rules or oversight for assassination program that occassionally targets US citizens - BHObama

Whatever your opinion is of the interrogation program, that's a pretty stark contrast.yep stark contrast.

One is torture

One is war

dirk digler
11-25-2012, 04:09 PM
Rulebook plus oversight for a non-lethal interrogation program - GWBush

No rules or oversight for assassination program that occassionally targets US citizens - GWBush

Whatever your opinion is of the interrogation program, that's a pretty stark contrast.

Bush seems so conflicted ;)

mlyonsd
11-25-2012, 04:11 PM
yep stark contrast.

One is torture

One is war
They're both war and with one innocents aren't collateral damage.

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 04:15 PM
They're both war and with one innocents aren't collateral damage.

This isn't exactly honest...One happens in the field of combat....in a combat zone, in an area not controlled by our forces.

The other happens in the safety and security of an area we control.

The killing and torturing of prisoners under your control is considered morally wrong by a vast majority of people.

Killing in combat during wartime, while not pleasant, is not considered morally wrong by the vast majority of people.

mlyonsd
11-25-2012, 04:24 PM
This isn't exactly honest...One happens in the field of combat....in a combat zone, in an area not controlled by our forces.

The other happens in the safety and security of an area we control.

The killing and torturing of prisoners under your control is considered morally wrong by a vast majority of people.

Killing in combat during wartime, while not pleasant, is not considered morally wrong by the vast majority of people.

To be honest because we're fighting terrorists instead of an army under a flag I could give a shit either way.

The thing I don't understand is how someone would care if a terrorist is water boarded but not give a shit if an innocent family is killed going for water or something is ok just because they're in the vicinity of a terrorist.

go bowe
11-25-2012, 04:25 PM
They're both war and with one innocents aren't collateral damage.

torture is bad and drones are bad, ok...

but would you eliminate drone strikes considering how effective they can be?

if not eliminate, what would you suggest as appropriate limitations on the practice?

mlyonsd
11-25-2012, 04:28 PM
torture is bad and drones are bad, ok...

but would you eliminate drone strikes considering how effective they can be?

if not eliminate, what would you suggest as appropriate limitations on the practice?I don't suggest eliminating them. I think it's hypocritical to think torture is bad but killing innocent people is ok.

Direckshun
11-25-2012, 04:28 PM
Rulebook plus oversight for a non-lethal interrogation program - GWBush

No rules or oversight for assassination program that occassionally targets US citizens - BHObama

Whatever your opinion is of the interrogation program, that's a pretty stark contrast.

I make no apologies or excuses or even explanations for Obama's drone program. Nobody on this forum has been more virulent against it than I have been.

But your characterization of Bush's torture program is hysterically inaccurate.

I suppose that's the difference between us.

Direckshun
11-25-2012, 04:29 PM
They're both war and with one innocents aren't collateral damage.

Torturing prisoners is not war. It's deliberate torture.

go bowe
11-25-2012, 04:34 PM
I don't suggest eliminating them. I think it's hypocritical to think torture is bad but killing innocent people is ok.

killing innocent people is never ok afaic...

that's my greatest concern wrt to the drone program...

i don't know how to address it, but that's the part that bothers me...

mlyonsd
11-25-2012, 04:35 PM
Torturing prisoners is not war. It's deliberate torture.

Yes I should clarify. Torturing an enemy fighting while flying a flag that plays by the rules of war is bad.

mlyonsd
11-25-2012, 04:37 PM
killing innocent people is never ok afaic...

that's my greatest concern wrt to the drone program...

i don't know how to address it, but that's the part that bothers me...

Yes it's messy. But I don't bust Obama's balls for doing it.

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 04:37 PM
The thing I don't understand is how someone would care if a terrorist is water boarded but not give a shit if an innocent family is killed going for water or something is ok just because they're in the vicinity of a terrorist.

That is what I am trying to explain to you,

Take for example a very well cited case of the "American" who we wkilled with drone strikes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi

Anwar_al Aulaqi.


We tried every which way to apprehend this guy, get him to come back to the US. We asked his family, his villiage...basically his entire village in Yemen was acting as a human shield....and this is a TOP Al Qaeda recruiter, recruiting other Americans to do damage/murder/bombings etc in America.

Our choices are 1) try to apprehend him (risk of loss of life, foregn soil etc...) or 2) surgical strike (risk of some collateral/human shield life) or 3) do nothing, and let him continue to wage war against us with an enemy group and have attacks carried out in the USA by his followers.

We chose to surgically strike him, for good or for bad...But back to your question...the DIFFERENCE is that if we had apprehended him, we wouldn't simply torture him or kill him.

The reason he died is because he was an enemy COMBATANT, on foreign soil and was actively waging war against us, with a group who congress has AUTHORIZED us to carry out strikes on, WHEREVER they may be. It is much easier to launch a hellfire missile from miles away than to risk many lives to send troops in just to apprehend one guy.

That is completely different from torturing /killing people under our control.....

Neither are good, but IMO when you have apprehended someone, and they have surrendered to you and do not pose a threat,(they are your prisoner), you are bound to give them reasonable care.

In combat, if there is an enemy or a leader hiding and waging war on you (and congress has authorized action) you are not duty bound to risk AMERICAN lives to apprehend them, instead of killing them. You can simply launch a missile, snipe them, or fire artillery at them....

That's the difference.

mlyonsd
11-25-2012, 04:42 PM
That is what I am trying to explain to you,

Take for example a very well cited case of the "American" who we wkilled with drone strikes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Aulaqi

Anwar_al Aulaqi.


We tried every which way to apprehend this guy, get him to come back to the US. We asked his family, his villiage...basically his entire village in Yemen was acting as a human shield....and this is a TOP Al Qaeda recruiter, recruiting other Americans to do damage/murder/bombings etc in America.

Our choices are 1) try to apprehend him (risk of loss of life, foregn soil etc...) or 2) surgical strike (risk of some collateral/human shield life) or 3) do nothing, and let him continue to wage war against us with an enemy group and have attacks carried out in the USA by his followers.

We chose to surgically strike him, for good or for bad...But back to your question...the DIFFERENCE is that if we had apprehended him, we wouldn't simply torture him or kill him.

The reason he died is because he was an enemy COMBATANT, on foreign soil and was actively waging war against us, with a group who congress has AUTHORIZED us to carry out strikes on, WHEREVER they may be. It is much easier to launch a hellfire missile from miles away that to risk many lives to send troops in just to apprehend one guy.

That is completely different from torturing /killing people under our control.....

Neither are good, but IMO when you have apprehended someone, and they have surrendered to you and do not pose a threat,(they are your prisoner), you are bound to give them reasonable care.

That's the difference.
Yes I get it. But when fighting a shadow group like AQ all gloves are off, especially when they've proven they don't mind flying kamikaze planes with innocent people aboard into buildings where innocent people are working.

If you apprehend one keeping that from happening again his more important than if is sinuses are cleared out by water.

patteeu
11-25-2012, 04:48 PM
yep stark contrast.

One is torture

One is war

Neither are torture, both are war. One respects the accountability we hold in high esteem in our country, the other is based on the hubris of an amateur from Chicago.

patteeu
11-25-2012, 04:50 PM
I make no apologies or excuses or even explanations for Obama's drone program. Nobody on this forum has been more virulent against it than I have been.

But your characterization of Bush's torture program is hysterically inaccurate.

I suppose that's the difference between us.

It's not inaccurate at all. And ftr, I object to the "torture" mischaracterizations running rampant in this thread.

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 04:51 PM
If you apprehend one keeping that from happening again his more important than if is sinuses are cleared out by water.

I'm not arguing that waterboarding is torture. I honestly don't know enough about it to say one way or the other.

But I am against torturing prisoners, as it hasn't even proven to be more effective than modern interrogation techniques.

LiveSteam
11-25-2012, 04:53 PM
This is not a conventional war. This is a war against terrorist.
If Torturing every last one of them, only saves one American family from going through the process of picking up a loved one in a casket draped with an American flag. Im all in.

patteeu
11-25-2012, 04:55 PM
I'm not arguing that waterboarding is torture. I honestly don't know enough about it to say one way or the other.

But I am against torturing prisoners, as it hasn't even proven to be more effective than modern interrogation techniques.

I'm against torture on moral grounds. I certainly don't believe it's been proven to be less effective than modern interrogation techniques in all possible cases though.

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 04:56 PM
I'm against torture on moral grounds. I certainly don't believe it's been proven to be less effective than modern interrogation techniques in all possible cases though.

Sure, there are exceptions....but my understanding is that overall it has been proven that other methods are more effective.

I'd be happy to look at some recent studies, if you have links though.

mlyonsd
11-25-2012, 04:57 PM
I'm not arguing that waterboarding is torture. I honestly don't know enough about it to say one way or the other.

But I am against torturing prisoners, as it hasn't even proven to be more effective than modern interrogation techniques.And that's fine, I don't suggest it being a common practice. I just don't understand the logic water boarding is bad when trying to save lives but killing innocent bystanders is ok when trying to do the same thing (drone strikes).

In the end they both are trying to accomplish the same goal.

BigRedChief
11-25-2012, 05:45 PM
And that's fine, I don't suggest it being a common practice. I just don't understand the logic water boarding is bad when trying to save lives but killing innocent bystanders is ok when trying to do the same thing (drone strikes).

In the end they both are trying to accomplish the same goal.It's not apples to apples.

Torture has been against even the "war" rules that have been agreed to since WW1. In those agreements that we signed, waterboarding is considered torture. And the scientific fact is that torture has not proven any more effective than other "information obtaining" techniques. The detained combatant are no longer a future threat to us, they are off the battlefield.

When we seek to kill enemy combatants with drones we must have reliable information that the individual or terrorist cell is there at the target. 98% of the time, those around the target are also enemy combatants or know that the target is an high value target. Those near him should know that being in proximity to this target is putting yourself in danger. In this new era, where ever the high value target is, that's where the battlefield is now. They are still a current and future threat to Americans. And we can't always wait to take them out.

mlyonsd
11-25-2012, 05:54 PM
It's not apples to apples.

Torture has been against even the "war" rules that have been agreed to since WW1. In those agreements that we signed, waterboarding is considered torture. And the scientific fact is that torture has not proven any more effective than other "information obtaining" techniques. The detained combatant are no longer a future threat to us, they are off the battlefield.

When we seek to kill enemy combatants with drones we must have reliable information that the individual or terrorist cell is there at the target. 98% of the time, those around the target are also enemy combatants or know that the target is an high value target. Those near him should know that being in proximity to this target is putting yourself in danger. In this new era, where ever the high value target is, that's where the battlefield is now. They are still a current and future threat to Americans. And we can't always wait to take them out.
It is apples to apples.

So there is never any justification for water boarding an apprehended terrorist?

patteeu
11-25-2012, 06:08 PM
Sure, there are exceptions....but my understanding is that overall it has been proven that other methods are more effective.

I'd be happy to look at some recent studies, if you have links though.

No one has any worthwhile studies one way or the other because torture is barbaric. It's not like we have torture experiments at the local research university.

patteeu
11-25-2012, 06:11 PM
It's not apples to apples.

Torture has been against even the "war" rules that have been agreed to since WW1. In those agreements that we signed, waterboarding is considered torture. And the scientific fact is that torture has not proven any more effective than other "information obtaining" techniques. The detained combatant are no longer a future threat to us, they are off the battlefield.

When we seek to kill enemy combatants with drones we must have reliable information that the individual or terrorist cell is there at the target. 98% of the time, those around the target are also enemy combatants or know that the target is an high value target. Those near him should know that being in proximity to this target is putting yourself in danger. In this new era, where ever the high value target is, that's where the battlefield is now. They are still a current and future threat to Americans. And we can't always wait to take them out.

It's not a scientific fact. It is a useful thing to preach as if it's a proven fact for maintaining discipline/order within the ranks of the military and law enforcement agencies though.

Brainiac
11-25-2012, 06:20 PM
yep stark contrast.

One is torture

One is war

I must have missed it. When did we declare war on Pakistan?

HonestChieffan
11-25-2012, 07:01 PM
Its difficult to accept that torture is immoral unless you are willing to recognize morality. Torture is simply wrong in Christian set of morals. For some cultures and religions it is not seen as wrong if an enemy is mistreated. We are a Christian people thus we reject torture. It has nothing to do with science at all

Chocolate Hog
11-25-2012, 07:04 PM
Has nobody bothered to read the NYU/Stanford report on drones? They create more terrorist than they kill.

BucEyedPea
11-25-2012, 07:09 PM
Has nobody bothered to read the NYU/Stanford report on drones? They create more terrorist than they kill.

Exactly!

HonestChieffan
11-25-2012, 07:14 PM
Has nobody bothered to read the NYU/Stanford report on drones? They create more terrorist than they kill.

Some say they do. Some say they don't. War is rarely won or lost in a study. Most wars end when one side has delivered enough death and destruction the other side gives up. Death by drone is hardly different than death by carpet bombing wide areas from a B 52 or from a mass invasion and use of artillery and riflemen. More enemies are created by any form of military might until the overwhelming power is recognized and the end of war is more desireable than more fighting. Ugly isn't it?

"It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it" (Robert E. Lee)

BigRedChief
11-25-2012, 07:55 PM
Has nobody bothered to read the NYU/Stanford report on drones? They create more terrorist than they kill.Al-Quaeda was a real threat to us here in the homeland. They had the infrastructure, communications and logistics to really pull off another killing Americans on USA soil.

I hate that innocents die in these strikes. And yes, more terrorists are created because of these drone strikes. Al-Quaeda is still dangerous but no longer a credible threat on the scale of 9/11. The main reason for this is the decimation of their leadership and militant cells through drone strikes. It's war, innocent people get killed.

IMHO, to achieved that outcome, those drone strikes and the resulting collateral damage is just part of the tragedy of war.

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 07:59 PM
And that's fine, I don't suggest it being a common practice. I just don't understand the logic water boarding is bad when trying to save lives but killing innocent bystanders is ok when trying to do the same thing (drone strikes).


Thats because you clearly are not getting it.

Prisoners are people ALREADY under our control.

Drone strikes are used to take out targets which we cannot easily get any other way, without risk of life to our men.

You are making it harder than it needs to be , honestly.

Drones are used in COMBAT.

Waterboarding is considered torture by some people and torture is used on prisoners (already captured, hence NOT in combat any more).

You seem to be confusing the arguments, and water boarding being (or not being) torture is a completely separate argument.

I am honestly pretty surprised you still fail to grasp this fairly basic concept.

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 08:01 PM
I must have missed it. When did we declare war on Pakistan?

That's ok, you aren't alone in being ignorant on this. Many are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

(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...

Passed 420-1 in the house, and 98-2 in the senate, totally bi-partisan

Brainiac
11-25-2012, 08:40 PM
That's ok, you aren't alone in being ignorant on this. Many are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists



Passed 420-1 in the house, and 98-2 in the senate, totally bi-partisan
Spare me the condescending tone, pal. I am fully aware of this. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of opposing waterboarding while supporting drone attacks because it's "war", when war has never been declared.

Pawnmower
11-25-2012, 08:43 PM
Spare me the condescending tone, pal. I am fully aware of this. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of opposing waterboarding while supporting drone attacks because it's "war", when war has never been declared.

The one has absoluetly nothing to do with the other....

If a person thinks waterboarding is torture (mistreating PRISONERS), then they SHOULD be opposed to it, regardless of their stance on drones.

On the other hand, drones are a part of COMBAT (like missiles, artillery, snipers..etc) and have nothing whatsoever to do with waterboarding.....(or the treatment of PRISONERS)

Maybe if you weren't so busy being a fucking idiot you could read the pages above , which explain this fact.

Taco John
11-25-2012, 10:50 PM
This is a really flawed argument, since killing combatants in the field is legal (Geneva convention) and killing or torturing of captured/prisoners is not.

People who make this argument have no concept of reality.


Reality - Obama is killing kids with his drone strikes:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NVkH69X32qs/UIA_rFQQJxI/AAAAAAAATOo/h59so_vD6Uw/s1600/drones_children_bodies_400.jpg

BucEyedPea
11-25-2012, 11:34 PM
That's ok, you aren't alone in being ignorant on this. Many are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists



Passed 420-1 in the house, and 98-2 in the senate, totally bi-partisan

Yeah, a totally bi-partisan act of unconstitutionality since Congress has no powers or right to transfer the authority to decide such things. It doesn't even mention "war" but that doesn't stop you progs. Congress just didn't want to be responsible. If things don't turn out well, they can just blame the president. It's no wonder Bush felt he didn't even need this. Originally it was drafted by Bush's office, then sent to the Congress for review. LMAO

BucEyedPea
11-25-2012, 11:42 PM
He's spot on too!

The bogus Iraq resolution to use military force:

Congress is about to circumvent the Constitution and avoid the tough decision of whether war should be declared by transferring this monumental decision-making power regarding war to the President. Once again, the process is being abused. Odds are, since a clear-cut decision and commitment by the people through their representatives are not being made, the results will be as murky as before. We will be required to follow the confusing dictates of the UN, since that is where the ultimate authority to invade Iraq is coming from — rather than from the American people and the U.S. Constitution.

A declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict. A declaration of war makes Congress assume the responsibilities directed by the Constitution for this very important decision, rather than assume that if the major decision is left to the President and a poor result occurs, it will be his fault, not that of Congress. Hiding behind the transfer of the war power to the executive through the War Powers Resolution of 1973 will hardly suffice.

However, the modern way we go to war is even more complex and deceptive. We must also write language that satisfies the UN and all our allies. Congress gladly transfers the legislative prerogatives to declare war to the President, and the legislative and the executive branch both acquiesce in transferring our sovereign rights to the UN, an un-elected international government. No wonder the language of the resolution grows in length and incorporates justification for starting this war by citing UN Resolutions.

Pawnmower
11-26-2012, 01:07 AM
Reality - Obama is killing kids with his drone strikes:


The problem I have with this argument is that I do not know of any other method that there would be less casualties & collateral damage.

I am wondering if you can possibly enlighten me on what more we can do as a nation to avoid killing the children that these people use as human shields.

I also wonder why people like you blame the USA for this, when clearly these people are hiding among civilians, wearing civilian clothing and violating the geneva convention.

I mean, please tell me...If the nation has authorized us to defend ourselves against these guys....how are we supposed to do it better than drones with cameras and pinpoint missile strikes with billion dollar weapon systems?

I'm sure you are aware that IED's planted by them kill more civilians than we ever have. Do you place any blame on them? Do you place ANY responsibility on Haqqani or Taliban or AL Qaeda thugs who are quartering troops (which we do not allow even in our constitution) in civilian homes?What say you?

I'd really like to know how you would suggest to attack some of these targets with less risk to US life and collateral damage.

Please explain.

If you know of some better way than drones to destroy these targets in a more humane manner, than please post some links.

FishingRod
11-26-2012, 11:03 AM
There are a lot of things to like (from our side) about using drones. The United States puts considerable effort in keeping our people out of harm’s way, as they damn well should yet, there is a downside to using our technology. Killing people from hundreds or thousands of miles away seems like a video game and, is far different than looking in the face of the target. Blowing people up, even those we don’t like, should not be something we take lightly. There will be collateral damage and without a doubt there are times when it is all the bad guys fault for intentionally surrounding their selves with women and children and sometime they are probably just going home for the night. It is much easier to blow up a house that may or may not have children in it for afar than it is to send a seal team in with orders to shoot them all and let God sort it out.

BucEyedPea
11-26-2012, 11:33 AM
How 'bout we reslove the problem more effectively. Such as leave them alone and get our bases and troops off their lands?

blaise
11-26-2012, 12:04 PM
They're both war and with one innocents aren't collateral damage.

I think what he meant is one is Democrat and the other a Republican.

mlyonsd
11-26-2012, 05:37 PM
Thats because you clearly are not getting it.

Prisoners are people ALREADY under our control.

Drone strikes are used to take out targets which we cannot easily get any other way, without risk of life to our men.

You are making it harder than it needs to be , honestly.

Drones are used in COMBAT.

Waterboarding is considered torture by some people and torture is used on prisoners (already captured, hence NOT in combat any more).

You seem to be confusing the arguments, and water boarding being (or not being) torture is a completely separate argument.

I am honestly pretty surprised you still fail to grasp this fairly basic concept.No, the fact is you don't get it.

I don't care if terrorists in captivity are water boarded. They aren't fighting under a flag. They use an innocent population as a shield. They murder the local population to get their way. If we can interrogate terrorists as a tool to "cannot get easily any other way" we should use it.

I don't have a problem with using 'torture' and/or drones. They both are a means to the same end.

The thing I find funny is someone being hypocritical in condoning drones which can kill innocent people, while thinking terrorists have rights in captivity, even though you don't have a problem blowing them up.

BucEyedPea
11-26-2012, 06:32 PM
It doesn't matter to me if they kill under a flag or not. I don't see how that determines right or wrong. It's arbitrary.

BigRedChief
11-26-2012, 06:38 PM
How 'bout we reslove the problem more effectively. Such as leave them alone and get our bases and troops off their lands?Isolationism will not make us safer.

BucEyedPea
11-26-2012, 06:49 PM
Isolationism will not make us safer.

That's not isolationism. Please define it correctly.

BucEyedPea
11-26-2012, 06:49 PM
"If you interpret the Constitution's saying that the president is commander in chief to mean that the president can do anything he wants and ignore the laws you don't have a constitution: you have a king."– Grover Norquist

Pawnmower
11-26-2012, 07:10 PM
The thing I find funny is someone being hypocritical in condoning drones which can kill innocent people, while thinking terrorists have rights in captivity, even though you don't have a problem blowing them up.

This is the 4th time you have made this connection, and it is still just as stupid as the 1st time. I give up. You are too dumb to bother with.

La literatura
11-26-2012, 07:17 PM
I don't suggest eliminating them. I think it's hypocritical to think torture is bad but killing innocent people is ok.

It's not, if torture is ineffective. My understanding is that torture is ineffective. The net gain from it is nearly zero, whereas the net loss (goodwill, greater use of effective alternatives) outweighs.

mlyonsd
11-26-2012, 07:24 PM
It's not, if torture is ineffective. My understanding is that torture is ineffective. The net gain from it is nearly zero, whereas the net loss (goodwill, greater use of effective alternatives) outweighs.

That's a more fair argument which could be debated on what the information is you gain.

mlyonsd
11-26-2012, 07:36 PM
This is the 4th time you have made this connection, and it is still just as stupid as the 1st time. I give up. You are too dumb to bother with.

I don't care what you think of me but the original point stands.

It's ironic there were rules of interrogation in place but nothing specific about using drones that causes innocent people to die.

Chocolate Hog
11-26-2012, 07:39 PM
Al-Quaeda was a real threat to us here in the homeland. They had the infrastructure, communications and logistics to really pull off another killing Americans on USA soil.

I hate that innocents die in these strikes. And yes, more terrorists are created because of these drone strikes. Al-Quaeda is still dangerous but no longer a credible threat on the scale of 9/11. The main reason for this is the decimation of their leadership and militant cells through drone strikes. It's war, innocent people get killed.

IMHO, to achieved that outcome, those drone strikes and the resulting collateral damage is just part of the tragedy of war.

I'm sorry but this simply isn't true. We are no safer now than we were on 9-11and drone strikes have certainly created more enemies.

patteeu
11-26-2012, 08:15 PM
It's not, if torture is ineffective. My understanding is that torture is ineffective. The net gain from it is nearly zero, whereas the net loss (goodwill, greater use of effective alternatives) outweighs.

Where did you gain this understanding?

La literatura
11-26-2012, 08:57 PM
Where did you gain this understanding?

Stuart Herrington

La literatura
11-26-2012, 09:01 PM
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2008/06/24/top-interrogators-declare-torture-ineffective-in-intelligence-gathering/

New York City — Fifteen former interrogators and intelligence officials with more than 350 years collective field experience have declared that torture is an “unlawful, ineffective and counterproductive” way to gather intelligence, in a statement of principles released today.

The group of former interrogators and intelligence officials released a set of principles to guide effective interrogation practices at the conclusion of a meeting convened by Human Rights First last week in Washington. The meeting participants served with the CIA, the FBI and the U.S. military.

The principles are based on the interrogators and intelligence officials’ experiences of what works and what does not in the field. Interrogation techniques that do not resort to torture yield more complete and accurate intelligence, they say. The principles call for the creation of a well-defined single standard of conduct in interrogation and detention practices across all U.S. agencies. At stake is the loss of critical intelligence and time, as well as the United States’ reputation abroad and its credibility in demanding the humane treatment of captured Americans.

patteeu
11-26-2012, 09:15 PM
Stuart Herrington

I don't know who that is, but based on the article you linked, it sounds like you're just repeating what you've been told rather than having been convinced by evidence or compelling argument.

Did any of the "experts" you're relying on admit to extensive use of torture? Or did they explain how they've developed their expertise on the subject?

La literatura
11-26-2012, 09:16 PM
I don't know who that is, but based on the article you linked, it sounds like you're just repeating what you've been told rather than having been convinced by evidence or compelling argument.

I'll admit that I haven't personally tortured anyone, so I rely on these experts. Have you tortured anyone? What were your results?

patteeu
11-26-2012, 09:18 PM
I'll admit that I haven't personally tortured anyone, so I rely on these experts. Have you tortured anyone? What were your results?

What experts? What makes them experts?

stonedstooge
11-26-2012, 09:25 PM
A press release from Human Rights Now?

Pawnmower
11-26-2012, 09:30 PM
I don't care what you think of me but the original point stands.

It's ironic there were rules of interrogation in place but nothing specific about using drones that causes innocent people to die.

Look you stupid buffoon...The only ironic thing is you don't understand the difference between killing someone on accident during a chaotic situation not under your control and killing/torturing someone ON PURPOSE while the situation is under your complete control.

The fact you continue to blabber on about not getting it just shows what a fucking tool you are.

It has always been, that in warfare there are civilian casualties...the weaponry we have now causes the least amount of civilian casualties in the history of combat. To try and equate the INTENTIONAL killing / torture of a prisoner, while held under your control with civilian casualties during a combat mission is fucking dumb.

You aren't confused because this is difficult, you are confused because you are a fucking imbecile.

It is a war crime to torture or kill prisoners. It isn't a war crime if a civilian dies accidentally....It is a war crime if a soldier kills civillians on purpose (and the USA is one of the only places that prosecutes these crimes)

Now do you fucking get it?

Or are you still a fucking retard?

La literatura
11-26-2012, 09:41 PM
What experts? What makes them experts?

The "15 individuals who served as senior interrogators, interviewers and intelligence officials in the United States military, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency" from the link. Their experience and knowledge in the field makes them experts.

Are you another expert in this field? Have you tortured persons? What were your results? What makes you qualified to have a credible opinion on this subject?

La literatura
11-26-2012, 09:42 PM
A press release from Human Rights Now?

No, Human Rights First.

patteeu
11-26-2012, 09:51 PM
The "15 individuals who served as senior interrogators, interviewers and intelligence officials in the United States military, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Central Intelligence Agency" from the link. Their experience and knowledge in the field makes them experts.

Are you another expert in this field? Have you tortured persons? What were your results? What makes you qualified to have a credible opinion on this subject?

Like I asked before have they had extensive experience in torture? If not, what makes them experts?

I've never tortured anyone, but I've performed many successful interrogations. Does that make me an expert too?

La literatura
11-26-2012, 09:54 PM
Like I asked before have they had extensive experience in torture? If not, what makes them experts?

I've never tortured anyone, but I've performed many successful interrogations. Does that make me an expert too?

You might be. Were your interrogations related to national security and military intelligence? That's part of what those 15 people did for a career.

Taco John
11-26-2012, 11:11 PM
The problem I have with this argument is that I do not know of any other method that there would be less casualties & collateral damage.


And the problem that I have with your argument is that we shouldn't be there in the first place. But even if you think that we should be bombing goat herders further into the stone age, how does that justify the slaughtering of innocent children? I certainly don't buy the "convenience and efficiency of it all makes it moral" argument.

Many of the targets that we're targeting at this point are nothing more than ideologues. We're trying to bomb out an idea. And it's not working. All we're doing is confirming what they already think of us. When their sons and daughters fall to drone blasts because papa liked to preach, we accomplish nothing for the US.

http://thewe.cc/thewe_/images_5/-----/illuminati-system/drone-strike-by-obama-children-killed.jpg

All I have to say is that I thank God that none of my votes are stamped on any of those kids skulls. I'd feel pretty shitty if I were an Obama voter seeing these heart wrenching photos and knowing that I had some culpability.

Taco John
11-26-2012, 11:25 PM
I'd love to know what your definition of terrorism is, and why drone strikes don't fit the bill.

J Diddy
11-26-2012, 11:28 PM
I'd love to know what your definition of terrorism is, and why drone strikes don't fit the bill.

I'm just curious as to why you feel a drone strike and an aircraft holding a pilot doing a bombing run are substantially different?

Not trying to be a smart ass just trying to understand the difference.

Direckshun
11-27-2012, 12:44 AM
I'd love to know what your definition of terrorism is, and why drone strikes don't fit the bill.

They absolutely do. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=264338)

Pawnmower
11-27-2012, 01:21 AM
I'm just curious as to why you feel a drone strike and an aircraft holding a pilot doing a bombing run are substantially different?

Not trying to be a smart ass just trying to understand the difference.

They aren't any different, one just risks US life....the other doesn't.


Drones are much superior to going in on the ground , machine guns, grenades, artillery, mortars..etc...

No one has yet named ANY other more safe weapon system, that saves US lives and civilian lives.

All of this nonsense about targeting children is dishonest bullshit. Everyone is against killing children. No one wants children to die, well except maybe Hamas....and AL Qaeda...

Why not place the blame (for civilian casualties) where it belongs....roadside bombs, IEDs and extremists kill MANY more civilians than drones do.

Pawnmower
11-27-2012, 01:22 AM
I'd love to know what your definition of terrorism is, and why drone strikes don't fit the bill.

When you answer my question, instead of spouting bullshit and throwing up pictures of dead people (emotional argument) then I will answer yours.

Taco John
11-27-2012, 01:59 AM
Why not place the blame (for civilian casualties) where it belongs...

It belongs on the person who drops the bombs on children, and the people who support it. Don't tell my you're against killing kids when you are sitting here rationalizing why it's ok to kill kids. You can pass the buck all you want, but at the end of the day, the guy giving the orders to kill kids is an American elected official.

We don't accept this in our own neighborhoods. We set a higher standard when it's our kids in question. But when the kids are brown and of a different religion, suddenly we don't all feel so invested in their futures.

Justice is not about what's safe. Justice is about what's right.

Taco John
11-27-2012, 02:03 AM
When you answer my question, instead of spouting bullshit and throwing up pictures of dead people (emotional argument) then I will answer yours.


You're damned straight it's an emotional argument. It ****ing hurts my heart to see those dead kids and know that my neighbors did that. It makes me reflect on my own kids, and the futures I hold in my heart for them, and how heartbreaking it must be for a father to hold his limp, dead son because some coward in Northern California is more concerned about doing what's safe than doing what's right.

What if this was your daughter disfigured for merely being at the wrong place at the wrong time?

http://grantjkidney.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/4ef37c722cb50.preview-3001.jpg

That's an innocent girl you're looking at. You call this justice? Where is her justice? Who makes her right again?

patteeu
11-27-2012, 08:02 AM
You might be. Were your interrogations related to national security and military intelligence? That's part of what those 15 people did for a career.

I don't think the subject matter makes any difference if you don't have any experience with the technique.

Look, we don't have experts in torture in the US because we don't use it. As far as I'm aware, we don't have any good studies on the subject even though torture has been used in other countries from time to time. These so-called experts never cite scientific studies to support their claims because there aren't any (at least I've never heard of any and you'd think they'd mention it if there were). On the other hand, there's a strong motivation for leaders of our national security services and police forces to advance the notion that torture isn't as effective as our approved means of interrogation. What better way to keep your forces from committing war crimes like torture than to convince them that it's ineffective to begin with?

I suspect that there are conditions under which torture is less effective than the techniques endorsed by these guys you're citing. I think we can look at cases like false confessions under torture and see that that's the case. But that doesn't mean that it's ineffective in every type of case. The person being interrogated is also a variable. I suspect that some people are less susceptible to one technique or another (torture or otherwise) while others are more susceptible.

The bottom line is that I think a lot more skepticism of these claims from experts who aren't really experts is in order.

Brainiac
11-27-2012, 08:47 AM
Am I the only one who is just fine with torturing terrorists but is against drone strikes?

If you have a terrorist in custody (and you better damn well be correct in your assessment that your prisoner is indeed a terrorist), then I have no moral qualms about using whatever means are available to extract information from him, especially if the terrorist is directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people. Whether the information you get is reliable or not is certainly up for debate, but you never know, you just might hit the jackpot and save a hell of a lot of lives. There's a certain assumption of risk that goes with being a terrorist who kills innocent people, and being tortured if you get captured is one of those risks the terrorist chooses to assume.

Drone strikes are another matter altogether. Drone strikes result in the killing of innocent people who aren't guilty of anything. Those innocent people didn't make a choice. They are victims just as much as the people in the World Trade Center were victims on 9/11. Smug and self-righteous idiots (like the one who has been posting in this thread) can post all of the defenses of this tactic that they want, but that doesn't change the fact the drone strikes are simply convenient and efficient ways to kill people via remote control. Some of the people who get killed are guilty as hell and deserve what they get. Some of the people who get killed are 100% innocent and don't deserve what they get.

Are drones a superior technology that saves US lives? Certainly. But to claim that drones cause less collateral damage to innocent victims than troops on the ground would cause is pure bullshit. If your objective is important enough, it's worth sending troops on the ground to accomplish it.

patteeu
11-27-2012, 08:57 AM
Am I the only one who is just fine with torturing terrorists but is against drone strikes?

If you have a terrorist in custody (and you better damn well be correct in your assessment that your prisoner is indeed a terrorist), then I have no moral qualms about using whatever means are available to extract information from him, especially if the terrorist is directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people. Whether the information you get is reliable or not is certainly up for debate, but you never know, you just might hit the jackpot and save a hell of a lot of lives. There's a certain assumption of risk that goes with being a terrorist who kills innocent people, and being tortured if you get captured is one of those risks the terrorist chooses to assume.

Drone strikes are another matter altogether. Drone strikes result in the killing of innocent people who aren't guilty of anything. Those innocent people didn't make a choice. They are victims just as much as the people in the World Trade Center were victims on 9/11. Smug and self-righteous idiots (like the one who has been posting in this thread) can post all of the defenses of this tactic that they want, but that doesn't change the fact the drone strikes are simply convenient and efficient ways to kill people via remote control. Some of the people who get killed are guilty as hell and deserve what they get. Some of the people who get killed are 100% innocent and don't deserve what they get.

Are drones a superior technology that saves US lives? Certainly. But to claim that drones cause less collateral damage to innocent victims than troops on the ground would cause is pure bullshit. If your objective is important enough, it's worth sending troops on the ground to accomplish it.

I don't share your (excessive IMO) concern for collateral damage. It's good that we make reasonable efforts to minimize collateral damage, but at some point collateral damage is unfortunate but, IMO, justified. It all depends on how important the target is and what your other options for getting that target are. In situations where people use innocents as shields, they're the ones who should be blamed for harm that comes to those innocents.

Brainiac
11-27-2012, 09:06 AM
I don't share your (excessive IMO) concern for collateral damage. It's good that we make reasonable efforts to minimize collateral damage, but at some point collateral damage is unfortunate but, IMO, justified. It all depends on how important the target is and what your other options for getting that target are. In situations where people use innocents as shields, they're the ones who should be blamed for harm that comes to those innocents.

That's a fair point, especially the part about human shields.

BucEyedPea
11-27-2012, 10:21 AM
We are killing many more of their innocents than any terrorist killed of ours. This is very unproportional and does not fit just war.

mlyonsd
11-27-2012, 10:41 AM
Look you stupid buffoon...The only ironic thing is you don't understand the difference between killing someone on accident during a chaotic situation not under your control and killing/torturing someone ON PURPOSE while the situation is under your complete control.

The fact you continue to blabber on about not getting it just shows what a ****ing tool you are.

It has always been, that in warfare there are civilian casualties...the weaponry we have now causes the least amount of civilian casualties in the history of combat. To try and equate the INTENTIONAL killing / torture of a prisoner, while held under your control with civilian casualties during a combat mission is ****ing dumb.

You aren't confused because this is difficult, you are confused because you are a ****ing imbecile.

It is a war crime to torture or kill prisoners. It isn't a war crime if a civilian dies accidentally....It is a war crime if a soldier kills civillians on purpose (and the USA is one of the only places that prosecutes these crimes)

Now do you ****ing get it?

Or are you still a ****ing retard?LMAO you mad?

If you haven't figured it out by now I've always understood your point. I just don't agree with it.

Moron hypocrite.

BucEyedPea
11-27-2012, 10:51 AM
If we vote for our govt—then we are not innocent. We are not innocent if we support harmful policies in other places that have bad consequences.

Pawnmower
11-27-2012, 11:37 AM
You're damned straight it's an emotional argument. It ****ing hurts my heart to see those dead kids and know that my neighbors did that. It makes me reflect on my own kids, and the futures I hold in my heart for them, and how heartbreaking it must be for a father to hold his limp, dead son because some coward in Northern California is more concerned about doing what's safe than doing what's right.

What if this was your daughter disfigured for merely being at the wrong place at the wrong time?


That's an innocent girl you're looking at. You call this justice? Where is her justice? Who makes her right again?

No one likes killing kids. You need to place the blame where it belongs...If everyone who attacks us then shields their bases with children, we could never strike them back?

There is a reason that these things are against the geneva coventions for warfare....(hiding amongst civilians, quartering in civilian homes, storing ammo / weapons in civilian areas etc...)

You are totally confused and letting your emotions cloud your reason. NO ONE is arguing that we should target children. That is a total straw-man argument on your part and a complete failure of logic.

You still have yet to answer the one basic question that would address the issue:

Can you please name another method of attack that would allow us to strike targets, with less risk to US lives as well as less collateral risk? Can you?

If not, don't you understand that this means we are already doing the best we can?