Obama Administration Defends Use of Drones (legal, accuse, soldiers, weapons)

[Soccersupporter]

So if you kill enough bad guys it is okay to kill civilians too.

Koh went on to outline the rules by which targets for drone operations are chosen. He said two important "principles" guide administration officials: "distinction" and "proportionality."

"Distinction," he said, means a strike must be limited to military targets; civilians or their property "shall not be the object" of any attack.

"Proportionality," he said, means that no attack should be launched that is expected to cause "excessive" damage or loss of live to civilians or their property, in comparison to the "direct military advantage anticipated."

Sounds a lot like the Bush Administration.

Koh continued: "[S]ome have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force."

He also addressed the issue of whether the drone attacks violate U.S. laws banning assassinations, asserting flatly that "under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems—consistent with the applicable laws of war—for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute ‘assassination.'"

Obama Administration Official Publicly Defends Drone Attacks - Declassified Blog - Newsweek.com

[Memphis1979]

War is a terrible thing. No bomb is perfect, and no military action will ever happen that doesn't harm an innocent person.

The age old question is, if you could kill Hitler, by killing 100 innocent people, would you do it? Remember, you would be saving several million Jews.

War is hell.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by Soccersupporter

So if you kill enough bad guys it is okay to kill civilians too.

Koh went on to outline the rules by which targets for drone operations are chosen. He said two important "principles" guide administration officials: "distinction" and "proportionality."

"Distinction," he said, means a strike must be limited to military targets; civilians or their property "shall not be the object" of any attack.

"Proportionality," he said, means that no attack should be launched that is expected to cause "excessive" damage or loss of live to civilians or their property, in comparison to the "direct military advantage anticipated."

Sounds a lot like the Bush Administration.

Koh continued: "[S]ome have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force."

He also addressed the issue of whether the drone attacks violate U.S. laws banning assassinations, asserting flatly that "under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems—consistent with the applicable laws of war—for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute ‘assassination.'"

Obama Administration Official Publicly Defends Drone Attacks - Declassified Blog - Newsweek.com

we now understand why he cant accuse Bush of war crimes and try him. he himself could be tried for war crimes under the lefties vision

[sanrene]

You mean the ones that have murdered innocent women and children?

Are these the same drone strikes obama used to rail against the bush admin?

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

we now understand why he cant accuse Bush of war crimes and try him. he himself could be tried for war crimes under the lefties vision

The Bush administration is being accused of war crimes, because of their treatment of prisoners and "peoples of interest" at Guantanamo and the "undisclosed locations" around the world.

Little to nothing to do with drones or civilian casualties.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

The Bush administration is being accused of war crimes, because of their treatment of prisoners and "peoples of interest" at Guantanamo and the "undisclosed locations" around the world.

Little to nothing to do with drones or civilian casualties.

So you claim killing innocent civilians is not a war crime?

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by Soccersupporter

So if you kill enough bad guys it is okay to kill civilians too.

Koh went on to outline the rules by which targets for drone operations are chosen. He said two important "principles" guide administration officials: "distinction" and "proportionality."

"Distinction," he said, means a strike must be limited to military targets; civilians or their property "shall not be the object" of any attack.

"Proportionality," he said, means that no attack should be launched that is expected to cause "excessive" damage or loss of live to civilians or their property, in comparison to the "direct military advantage anticipated."

Sounds a lot like the Bush Administration.

Koh continued: "[S]ome have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force."

He also addressed the issue of whether the drone attacks violate U.S. laws banning assassinations, asserting flatly that "under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems—consistent with the applicable laws of war—for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute ‘assassination.'"

Obama Administration Official Publicly Defends Drone Attacks - Declassified Blog - Newsweek.com

Hey I love it.
We've gotten some pretty big fish lately.
Who knows, maybe we'll FINALLY get Bin Laden.
Wouldn't THAT be nice.



Ken

[LordBalfor]

Originally Posted by wjtwet

So you claim killing innocent civilians is not a war crime?

If it is then the US is as guilty as anyone else in WWII.
I don't think those B-17s and B-24s bombing Germany differentiated between soldiers and civilians - nor did those atomic bombs over Japan.
So what say you?
Are you accusing the US of War Crimes in WWII?
How about Korea?
What about Vietnam - was Jane Fonda right about Vietnam?

The death of innocent civilians is a fact of life in war (ANY war).

Ken

[HappyTexan]

So war is ok if our side doesn't use humans ?

[subsound]

It's a silly end run around the debate into "if people usually of one political spectrum usually argue against it, and the political leader condones it...then then the discussion has ended in any relation to this". Which is a failure of the argument.

The real issue is the innocents versus combatants and the use of unmanned combat vehicles. Considering the drones save the lives of US soldiers it's plus. Innocents will get caught in the crossfire either way, there is no real increase in that rate in the use of manned and unmanned combat vehicles. Considering the combatants in the current conflicts intentionally target and attempt to inflict the maximum amount of civilian casualties they can (and hold human shields), it's top priority to kill them.

Currently, it has many benefits. The issue will be when they use software to try and differentiate.