General Discussion

RC

(25,592 posts)

1. Targeted killing by drones is a war crime.

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 07:46 PM

Aug 2012

International legal action has mostly focused on the US programme of targeted killings by drones in Pakistan's tribal lands, Yemen and Somalia – states where there is no declared war or United Nations-authorised conflict.

Can anyone imagine the uproar and calls for retaliation if any other country dared to try to do the same thing to any of our war criminals, in this country? There'd be a loud outcry for making the attacking country a glass parking lot. Yet, we do it to other countries with seemly impunity.
What is the difference between a Star Chamber and the way we pick people to murder with drones in countries we are NOT are war with. I'm not seeing any.
And then there are the innocent people killed in the vicinity of the intended target. Guilt by proximity is now a capital crime? Does that mean we can charge the survivors of the James Holmes shootings in the theater with murder too?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

44 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The legal dilemma over drone strikes: justified killings or war crimes? [View all] The Northerner Aug 2012 OP

Targeted killing by drones is a war crime. RC Aug 2012 #1

Drones are the new nuclear weapons. They need to be outlawed by all indie9197 Aug 2012 #2

285...nt SidDithers Aug 2012 #3

If your counting has to do with the OP and not the content, it is a TOS violation. Bonobo Aug 2012 #4

Good edit... SidDithers Aug 2012 #5

So what do the numbers mean? Bonobo Aug 2012 #7

No... SidDithers Aug 2012 #8

This is the first (and only) thread I have spoken to you on. Bonobo Aug 2012 #9

Am I posting a "running count on all his threads", as you're accusing me of doing?...nt SidDithers Aug 2012 #10

I saw two threads in which you had posted consecutive numbers. Bonobo Aug 2012 #11

And the personal attacks continue... SidDithers Aug 2012 #12

No... Bonobo Aug 2012 #15

I'm a reasonable person. 285 isn't "information", because it has no context, patrice Aug 2012 #35

So, answer him. I read the content. 285 is meaningless to that. rug Aug 2012 #16

What do the numbers mean? n/t sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #30

The numbers mean something/anything/nothing & IMO, that's Sid. nt patrice Aug 2012 #36

629 Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2012 #23

479 mike_c Aug 2012 #26

Dunno technically, but definitely fits the legal definition of crime against humanity Poll_Blind Aug 2012 #6

Democracies don't do assassinations. Oblomov Aug 2012 #13

Who is the tyrant in your scenario?...nt SidDithers Aug 2012 #14

I don't know. George Walker Bush? He killed a U.S. citizen without trial. Oblomov Aug 2012 #17

I wasn't thinking of anyone. I wanted to know who you were thinking of... SidDithers Aug 2012 #18

Are you a policeman? Oblomov Aug 2012 #19

He's one of the self-appointed guardians of purity. Comrade Grumpy Aug 2012 #25

Bush claimed total control over decisions of life and death without review, without input sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #31

Always a good question, but one that IS extremely hard to answer, so the best patrice Aug 2012 #32

We don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. patrice Aug 2012 #29

K&R Solly Mack Aug 2012 #20

There is no dilemma, there is an unwillingness to face the facts. bemildred Aug 2012 #21

Gee, I wonder why the United States isn't signed on to the ICC? Tierra_y_Libertad Aug 2012 #22

Drone strikes are as indiscriminate as chemical or biological weapons 1-Old-Man Aug 2012 #24

If we really want to operate under the banner of international law, which we don't, Fantastic Anarchist Aug 2012 #27

I don't know. That doesn't excuse me, but it IS a fact. I. don't. know. & I do know: patrice Aug 2012 #28

Was Bush right then when he claimed total power over all decisions like this? Were we on the sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #33

All persons should maintain and OWN their rights to their own decisions. I am just patrice Aug 2012 #34

We have laws that society collectively agreed on through their chosen representatives. sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #37

All true, but what about the fact that, whether we like it or not, that "representation" patrice Aug 2012 #40

I think we may agree that the Constitution is not the God some people want to patrice Aug 2012 #44

Fascism on our front door Herlong Aug 2012 #38

I think it all depends MNBrewer Aug 2012 #39

A VERY broad statement about BILLIONS of people, ergo, bias. Without patrice Aug 2012 #41

Billions of people + a practically infinite number of permutations of factors per patrice Aug 2012 #42

Just because you can't/don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there; doesn't mean patrice Aug 2012 #43