U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-27-2010, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Irvine, CA to Keller, TX
4,830 posts, read 6,410,802 times
Reputation: 844

Advertisements

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
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2010, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,874 posts, read 22,198,825 times
Reputation: 8654
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 9,326,266 times
Reputation: 2527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soccersupporter View Post
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
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,313 posts, read 41,320,272 times
Reputation: 7108
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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,874 posts, read 22,198,825 times
Reputation: 8654
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth Texas
12,481 posts, read 9,326,266 times
Reputation: 2527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
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?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 01:03 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,456 posts, read 24,016,785 times
Reputation: 7580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soccersupporter View Post
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
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 01:07 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,456 posts, read 24,016,785 times
Reputation: 7580
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjtwet View Post
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

Last edited by LordBalfor; 03-27-2010 at 01:44 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,068 posts, read 76,616,443 times
Reputation: 27642
So war is ok if our side doesn't use humans ?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2010, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
7,090 posts, read 11,165,994 times
Reputation: 4118
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:31 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top