REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

US drone strikes: Memo reveals case for killing Americans

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 05:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5528
PAGE 1 of 3

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:01 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

The legal basis for using drone strikes to kill US citizens has been disclosed in a leaked justice department memo.

US officials can authorise the killing of Americans abroad if they are leaders of al-Qaeda or its allies, according to the document obtained by NBC News.

Lethal force is lawful if they are judged to pose an "imminent threat" and their capture is not feasible, it adds.

US drone strikes against militant suspects in countries such as Yemen and Pakistan are deeply controversial.

Under President Barack Obama the US has expanded its use of drones to kill hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects, arguing that it is acting in self-defence in accordance with international law.

Critics argue the drone strikes amount to execution without trial and cause many civilian casualties.

Legal framework

The undated 16-page Department of Justice white paper published by NBC gives more details of the justification for the use of drones outside recognised war zones.

It says sovereignty is not deemed to have been violated if the host nation gives its consent, or is unwilling or unable to suppress the threat posed by the individual targeted.

It also sets out a "legal framework" for the use of lethal force against US citizens in foreign countries.

It concludes that such killings do not violate the US Constitution as long as:

-An informed, high-level official of the US government has determined that the targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the US

-Capture is infeasible and the US continues to monitor whether capture becomes feasible

-The operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles

The paper adopts a broad definition of "imminent threat", saying it is not necessary to produce evidence that a specific attack is being planned if the target is generally engaged in plotting against the US.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21333570

And a direct link to the memo.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/020413_DOJ_White_Paper
.pdf


I notice that nowhere in this memo does it discuss the legality of killing innocent folk who just happen to be near the point where leathal force is 'legally' applied to the folks describen in the memo.

This should raise at least as much outrage as John Yoo's 'torture' memo; shouldn't it?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:18 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
This should raise at least as much outrage as John Yoo's 'torture' memo; shouldn't it?



One would hope for some outrage, yes.



... is it really in accordance with international law to assassinate people if the country has not given its consent but is merely deemed unable to take care of the threat?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 4:49 AM

BYTEMITE


Geezer:

It does.

The problem is assuming that we haven't already guessed that this has been happening, or that we don't know this is going to leapfrog to killing non-Al Qaeda American dissenters.

Much like the torture. Anyone who can use their brain knows what's really going on behind the scenes in our military and intelligence community, and it isn't pretty. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 4:53 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
This should raise at least as much outrage as John Yoo's 'torture' memo; shouldn't it?



One would hope for some outrage, yes.



... is it really in accordance with international law to assassinate people if the country has not given its consent but is merely deemed unable to take care of the threat?



No, it's not. Which is why our war with the Taliban in Afghanistan was also pretty unjustifiable.

Horrible theocracy none-the-less collectively sees a steamroller coming their way and offers to capture a high priority terrorism target and try and execute them for their crimes. In response we attack the theocracy and destabilize the region further. Good logic America!

I'm sure America won't use 9-11 for other questionable activities or as an excuse for unnecessary invasive security measures that violate constitutional rights of Americans. I'm sure the War in Afghanistan wasn't just a smokescreen so Americans would feel like the leadership was being proactive instead of screwing them over.

America isn't at war with muslim terrorists. It's at war with Americans. And anyone who hasn't seen both political parties laying the groundwork, chipping away at the protections that the average American citizen has against the political-industrial-military complex, they haven't been paying attention.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 6:17 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


POTUS, both RED and Blue POTUS, have sworn to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic...............

For those who think the black copters are coming.............


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 6:39 AM

JONGSSTRAW


I can't decide which pathetic hypocrisy is worse...the Left's justifications and parsed explanations, or the Right trying to act like they don't want these people killed.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 6:49 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Another article.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/02/legal-basis-killing-americans/

This has been talked about for years, and going on for years more. I think only now is the admin brazen enough to explain it in a memo.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:14 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
I notice that nowhere in this memo does it discuss the legality of killing innocent folk who just happen to be near the point where leathal force is 'legally' applied to the folks describen in the memo.


Your talking about collateral damage. The reason its not in this memo is because its been the subject of numerous other memos. The generally accepted standard is that when you do anything (drone strike, pizza delivery) try not to kill anybody or damage any property unless its absolutely necessary.

What is or is not necessary is the subject of lots of other memos.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:39 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I can't decide which pathetic hypocrisy is worse...the Left's justifications and parsed explanations, or the Right trying to act like they don't want these people killed.


I guess that makes me a Moderate on this issue...I want them killed, but I also want it to be justified.

For example, I think we should make every effort to capture American citizens who are in the act of giving aid and comfort to the enemy or bearing arms against us. I want them captured so we can sit down and chat with them in a friendly setting (like Gitmo or a friendly foriegn power) and ask them questions about the things they know and the bad people they are helping. This way they can redeem themselves for their wrongs by willingly giving us the information we want. In the alternative they can unwillingly give us the information we want after a period of moderate to severe discomfort. Either way they will have the opportunity to realize the error of their ways and seek redemption in the form of confession and make their peace with the nation they betrayed.

Then we kill them.

Just dropping a bomb on them is such a waste. And my method would limit the collateral damage that the Left is so upset about. We can even power our cattle prods with Windmills and use recycled water for the 'wet' work. Then its just win-win for everyone.


H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:53 AM

JONGSSTRAW


I won't hedge. I like the drone strikes and I hope they kill as many enemies of America as possible. Killing Al Alwaki in Yemen was a great thing. Killing Al Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan is a great thing. If there's collateral killing, it's better than Americans dying trying to capture these people.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:15 AM

AGENTROUKA


What scares me about the state of the world is that I can't tell if either of you is joking.


I'll just assume you are because I don't like being all alone in my fluffy humanitarian corner with my little human rights collection. *hugs Sophie Scholl action figure*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:47 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I can't decide which pathetic hypocrisy is worse...the Left's justifications and parsed explanations, or the Right trying to act like they don't want these people killed.






Or so-called conservatives trying to pretend that people should be just as "outraged" by this as they were about the torturing of people - when those same so-called conservatives insist to this day that nobody was ever tortured and nothing wrong was done.

So we're supposed to be just as outraged as... you *weren't*?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 10:49 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What scares me about the state of the world is that I can't tell if either of you is joking.




They're not joking. And they both claim to be "pro-life".


Just as long as it's AMERICAN life. Anyone else, they could give a fuck about.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 12:17 PM

JONGSSTRAW


?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 2:16 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I won't hedge. I like the drone strikes and I hope they kill as many enemies of America as possible. Killing Al Alwaki in Yemen was a great thing. Killing Al Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan is a great thing. If there's collateral killing, it's better than Americans dying trying to capture these people.



This I agree with wholeheartedly.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 2:30 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
POTUS, both RED and Blue POTUS, have sworn to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic...............

For those who think the black copters are coming.............


SGG



They're doing a great job.



Phhpppbbbt Phhpppbbbt Phhpppbbbt

The best part about helicopters is on the internet helicopter noises also sound like a raspberry.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:18 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


One can know these things are going on, but until concrete evidence is leaked etc. lots of people don't believe it for real, they want to believe that secret stuff doesn't happen, or if they do believe it happens they don't want to know in detail. This is the time when Wikileaks etc. is a good thing. Sometimes I don't like it, but in some cases its just what is needed.

That being said I kind of agree with Jong and Nick, I don't like this persay, because I don't like people fighting and being mean to each other and not getting along, but that's reality and I'd rather people die this way than us sending our people over there to do it. The thing that concerns me is that there doesn't have to be proof of an attack in the works, that means that people might not be correct in who they kill. But I guess that happens. :(

Sophie Scholl is cool!

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:56 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:

The thing that concerns me is that there doesn't have to be proof of an attack in the works, that means that people might not be correct in who they kill. But I guess that happens. :(




The thing that concerns me is how cavalier we've become with the killing of innocents. We act like we can just shrug it off - "Meh... shit happens, whattaya gonna do?"

Did anyone think that maybe there SHOULD be serious costs to war, and that maybe that would make us think twice about engaging in it in the first place?

You do realize that these same drones are coming home to roost, right?

How do you feel about militia groups being taken out with Hellfire missiles because they were probably thinking about maybe being up to something someday? "I guess that happens..."



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:19 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
I won't hedge. I like the drone strikes and I hope they kill as many enemies of America as possible. Killing Al Alwaki in Yemen was a great thing. Killing Al Qaeda and Taliban in Pakistan is a great thing. If there's collateral killing, it's better than Americans dying trying to capture these people.




This I agree with wholeheartedly.


I'm fairly stunned by that reply. Definitely not what I would have expected from you. I appreciate your honesty on this issue.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:45 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."

Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:53 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


The first problem I have with the whole concept is there is an assumption of guilt without that assumption ever being tested at trial. There was an assumption Iraq had WMDs too - and how did that work out? The second problem I have is the erosion of rights - not just US constitutional rights but human rights. The third problem I have is the death of innocents. The fourth is the blowback we'll face that's already building. Way to go to recruit for the other side guys! Lastly, it doesn't work. Simply eliminating an individual or five here or there won't stop terrorism or terrorists. A 'war' - with guns and bombs - on terrorism is the wrong model to use to eliminate terrorism.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 6:43 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
The first problem I have with the whole concept is there is an assumption of guilt without that assumption ever being tested at trial. There was an assumption Iraq had WMDs too - and how did that work out? The second problem I have is the erosion of rights - not just US constitutional rights but human rights. The third problem I have is the death of innocents. The fourth is the blowback we'll face that's already building. Way to go to recruit for the other side guys! Lastly, it doesn't work. Simply eliminating an individual or five here or there won't stop terrorism or terrorists. A 'war' on terrorism is the wrong model to use.




Bingo. We're told that these people have been vetted and are an "imminent threat". By who? A star chamber?

This stuff is a direct result of shit like the Patriot Act and the torture policies and the idea that the GOP has, this notion that all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 7:43 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


That's a really good point about how we might not be so eager to go to war if it was right there in our face, like in WWII, I think people bqack then understood more than people do now how a war really is. Everyone at home was involved, whereas wars now are going on _out _there and we don't think about it as much as we should. I think that's a really valid point Quicko. Why though do you dislike me more about my post than Jong or Nick about theirs? At least I'm a little hesitant.

And I definitely agree that the Patriot Act has a lot of crappy stuff in it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 8:07 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
That's a really good point about how we might not be so eager to go to war if it was right there in our face, like in WWII, I think people bqack then understood more than people do now how a war really is. Everyone at home was involved, whereas wars now are going on _out _there and we don't think about it as much as we should. I think that's a really valid point Quicko. Why though do you dislike me more about my post than Jong or Nick about theirs? At least I'm a little hesitant.

And I definitely agree that the Patriot Act has a lot of crappy stuff in it.





I definitely do not dislike you more - or even at all - for your post, Riona. You've shown more willingness to think about issues when given new information, whereas Jongsie is quite calcified in his beliefs, it seems.

And yes, we absolutely should be faced with the true costs of war. We should see the coffins coming back. We should see the pictures of the dead soldiers and civilians. The people who came back the most changed from WWII were the ones who liberated the concentration camps. Nothing on Earth could ever make them unsee what they'd witnessed there.

And leaders should be given pictures of every victim of every strike. Killing shouldn't come easy. It's never supposed to get easy. Ask yourself if you could stand face to face with Bin Laden and then stick a knife in his eye with your own hand. Could you cut his throat and watch while he gasps for air and drowns in his own blood? If not, why condone your government doing it? Paying a hit man to pull the trigger is still murder.

Drones make life cheaper. They make killing cheaper, and it should never be cheap to murder someone.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 8:17 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


Could I kill someone? The answer is yes. I've thought about it and I know I could do it if I needed to. It isn't something I ever hope to do, its not something that I would enjoy at all, it would be really scary. But I think I could do it if I deemed it necessary.

Others? Could you do it? I've actually been thinking of putting up a thread about this very question.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:21 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."

Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.



You're simply on "the other side" now.... just like I was during the GWB admin....

I HATED Bush Jr. and, at the time, thought he was the worst president we ever had.

Those justifications and parsed explanations you're being expected to spit out are the exact ones the other side couldn't hope to cop to 8 years ago....

Bottom line is this....

GWB got two terms from the "Wag the Dog" mentality..... when it looked like he might not be re-elected, he made two promises he didn't uphold....

1) Ban gay marriage constitutionally (thank god it didn't happen because we didn't need another scar on our Constitution when Obama made it his first mission to repeal it).

2) Social Security reform..... (sounds good on paper..... I was wall street kid for a while and made thousands on my thousands until the bottom fell out...... in the end, I made money, most people wouldn't be able to say the same.... SS is BS and anybody over 40 who's paying into it today probably won't get squat.... but put indivduals in charge of that money like it's "VEGAS" and you'll find a lot more Americans out on their ass a lot quicker...




GWB was the WORST PRESIDENT WE EVER HAD.....

If for no other reason than he invigorated a counter-culture so anti-white, anti-Christian and anti-American that we'd vote the first well spoken Black man into office, even if he was born and raised in the most politically corrupt county of the most politically corrupt state of the union....

We might have well have voted in Mayor Dayle's son in for two terms......

I'm all about voting a black man in... but not this way.....

3 years from now, and beyond, there is zero chance a black man is getting in again in our generation.......

We'll easily see a Mexican or Indian president 2 or 3 times before we see another black president..... Half of them women......

Jimmy Carter, as bloody and dripping as his liberal heart is, is sitting back laughing now.... at least before he dies, he knows that America won't think he was the worst president we've ever had.....

Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Goddamn Richard Nixon......




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:46 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
Could I kill someone? The answer is yes. I've thought about it and I know I could do it if I needed to. It isn't something I ever hope to do, its not something that I would enjoy at all, it would be really scary. But I think I could do it if I deemed it necessary.

Others? Could you do it? I've actually been thinking of putting up a thread about this very question.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya




Make the thread Riona...

Even if you do, the answers would be false for the most part....

As you know, I have a gun, although I've NEVER fired it....

I've also choked somebody in jr. high to the point the passed out and onlookers had to pull me off of him....

He survived, and never bothered me or my friends or brothers again.....

But I often wondered.... would I have killed him if nobody from the outside had pulled me away?



Killing somebody.... whether out of anger or malice, or even just out of self defense is a tall order....

In general, I dislike 90% of the people I've ever met face-to-face...

That doesn't mean I want them dead....



If I had my way, I'd be there at every "Batman shooting" to tackle the shooter and make him suffer every life he took with the loss of an appendage, starting with both of his eyes and ears.....

I'd think first, of every mother and father that could never see their beautiful child smile again, and then how they could never hear their laughter with friends again after that night....

After having burned out their eyes and eardums, I'd move on to the other senses.....

I'd first, remove their trigger fingers from both of their hands with an axe..... making sure they'd never be able to do that to anyone again.

Then I would insert both of those fingers, along with any shell casings they used in the shooting so far up their ass they'd be drooling bullets and fingers....

Then I'd fire my gun, for the first time, and blow off every single finger and toe they had.....

And then I'd show them mercy, and let them "roam"..........

Knowing, with every beat of their heart, they're on borrowed time......

Make ONE WRONG MOVE and you're dead.......


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 2:27 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You do realize that these same drones are coming home to roost, right?

How do you feel about militia groups being taken out with Hellfire missiles because they were probably thinking about maybe being up to something someday? "I guess that happens..."



Hello slippery slope argument.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 2:36 AM

AGENTROUKA


Is it unreasonable of me to think that if no war has been declared on a country, that country's civilians should be even more off-limits than in a traditional war where bombs falling on civilians would be at least expected and grounds for evacuation efforts?

I mean, why are American soldiers, who signed up for the duty and are prepared to take risks more valuable than, say, Pakistani civilians who just happen to live near a potential terrorist hide-out? Is the national distinction more important than the civilian distinction?

I mean, is there a limit on the term "collateral damage" when all risk assessment places their lives as less important than that of actual professional soldiers?

I just honestly don't get the value system at work here. Maybe I'm lacking the "Rah rah, go [insert country]!" element?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 3:30 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Sending in soldiers does not end the threat of collateral damage. Plus you have the fact that in Pakistan the government has allowed drone strikes but not boots on the ground.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 4:43 AM

BYTEMITE


You know, every time you eat beefsteak, it's the equivalent of eating something with the mind of a two year old child.

You people have all already been killing. That's simply part of life, it's just in society and "civilization" the killing is all indirect. You can splatter the father of a family of Pakistanis with a targetted strike and pat yourselves on the back that you got a terrorist in the mix, while his daughters and wife starve because they can't get work and eventually get forced into prostitution.

Moral high ground? There's no such thing. Blood's already on all of your hands.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 4:57 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You do realize that these same drones are coming home to roost, right?

How do you feel about militia groups being taken out with Hellfire missiles because they were probably thinking about maybe being up to something someday? "I guess that happens..."



Hello slippery slope argument.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



Slippery slope argument?

Quote:

In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.

....

The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.



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

No, actually, it wasn't. They're killing American citizens without trial. That's pretty bad. The question we're asking is that if there is now precedence for this, will the department of defense bother making a distinction between terrorists and political dissenters (side note: they don't. See http://www.aclu.org/images/general/asset_upload_file89_39820.pdf), and therefore apply similar measures to people here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

In the Battle of Blair Mountain that Frem's always talking about, the US actually threatened to bombard the resistance from the air, and some contend that there was in fact air support for the national guard and pro-corporate forces during the fight.

Each part of the chain is a valid supportable premise, because it's already happened in the past.

I call fallacy fallacy on you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 5:10 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


They are killing American civilians who are overseas and helping terrorist organizations. That is a far cry from killing militant groups inside the US as Kwicko described. I think most people can see the differences.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 5:29 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:


They are killing American civilians who are overseas and helping terrorist organizations. That is a far cry from killing militant groups inside the US as Kwicko described. I think most people can see the differences.



You and I see a difference. The department of defense doesn't.

But, very well, I won't argue with you. I hope you get all the predator strikes you want and then some. For your own security of course.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:13 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."

Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.


Well...there's the President, the Attorney General, the outgoing and incoming SecState, the heads of the CIA and HomeSec...and so on.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:00 AM

BYTEMITE


Amazing how Hero just listed a bunch of people I hate. Could it be coinky-dince?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:12 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."

Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.


Well...there's the President, the Attorney General, the outgoing and incoming SecState, the heads of the CIA and HomeSec...and so on.




Listening to Eric Holder's speech justifying targeting Americans for drone kills reminded me of the Senator Long line in 'JFK'...."like pickin' gnat shit out of pepper"

And watching Jay Carney do the Tennessee two-step dance around reporters' questions about the drone memo was a real hoot.

Joe Biden, a vocal opponent of EITs, just fine with drone kills. Same with new Sec. of State John Kerry.

NBC, ABC, & CBS, relentless against Bush for EITs, silent on drone policy for years.

Democratic Senators and Congressmen against EITs mostly silent on drone policy for years.

And on and on.....there's justifying and parsing going on right in front of you. And it's all to cover and protect Barack Obama. Now, are Republicans and their phony outrage gonna find a way to muck it up for merely a percieved political advantage?





NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:43 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Now, are Republicans and their phony outrage gonna find a way to muck it up for merely a percieved political advantage?


...Well, there goes my moral everything.

Recommended bleach and a steel wire scrubber.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:50 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
They are killing American civilians who are overseas and helping terrorist organizations. That is a far cry from killing militant groups inside the US as Kwicko described. I think most people can see the differences.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.




They are killing American citizens. That's the key point, and the one you seem determined to miss. Once you've cleared the killing of American citizens without due process, or through a star chamber without oversight or transparency, the matter of "where" is nothing more than a Google Map away.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:53 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"the Left's justifications and parsed explanations ..."

Like who? I can't think of a single person on 'the left' who agrees with the policy.


Well...there's the President, the Attorney General, the outgoing and incoming SecState, the heads of the CIA and HomeSec...and so on.




Listening to Eric Holder's speech justifying targeting Americans for drone kills reminded me of the Senator Long line in 'JFK'...."like pickin' gnat shit out of pepper"

And watching Jay Carney do the Tennessee two-step dance around reporters' questions about the drone memo was a real hoot.

Joe Biden, a vocal opponent of EITs, just fine with drone kills. Same with new Sec. of State John Kerry.

NBC, ABC, & CBS, relentless against Bush for EITs, silent on drone policy for years.

Democratic Senators and Congressmen against EITs mostly silent on drone policy for years.

And on and on.....there's justifying and parsing going on right in front of you. And it's all to cover and protect Barack Obama.




Of course, the point could also be made that Republicans, who have remained silent (or loudly supported) such tactics for years, suddenly have a problem with them NOW, and it's all so they can use it to attack President Obama.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:12 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What scares me about the state of the world is that I can't tell if either of you is joking.

What scares me is that an argument even exists about the moral justification of killing people extrajudicially.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:38 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What scares me about the state of the world is that I can't tell if either of you is joking.

What scares me is that an argument even exists about the moral justification of killing people extrajudicially.

-----

Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal.




And so many people here seem just fine with it because they've been told that those who are being killed are "undesirables".


Heck, we don't even make 'em wear a gold star anymore! Just skip right to the wholesale killing of them.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:51 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
They are killing American citizens. That's the key point, and the one you seem determined to miss. Once you've cleared the killing of American citizens without due process, or through a star chamber without oversight or transparency, the matter of "where" is nothing more than a Google Map away.



The "where" mean a hell of a lot. Do you really think that the use of drone strikes on US soil would go over with people like the current drone strikes do? I think most people will see the where as a better line than the who.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 10:55 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And so many people here seem just fine with it because they've been told that those who are being killed are "undesirables".


Heck, we don't even make 'em wear a gold star anymore! Just skip right to the wholesale killing of them.



I don't seem to remember the Jews working to destroy Germany or planning terrorist attack. I must have missed that history lesson.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:07 AM

BYTEMITE


I don't seem to recall muslim civilians in Pakistani (or other) areas are necessarily working to destroy us either.

Or how you have determined that Al Qaeda has killed more US citizens than America has killed muslim middle eastern citizens.

You don't seem to care whether the people we hit in drone strikes are civilians or not. Justified by "collateral damage." Convenient.

So what makes American civilian lives more valuable than muslim civilian lives? Why are American citizens not collateral damage from a different point of view?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:23 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't seem to recall muslim civilians in Pakistani (or other) areas are necessarily working to destroy us either.

Or how you have determined that Al Qaeda has killed more US citizens than America has killed muslim middle eastern citizens.

You don't seem to care whether the people we hit in drone strikes are civilians or not. Justified by "collateral damage." Convenient.

So what makes American civilian lives more valuable than muslim civilian lives? Why are American citizens not collateral damage from a different point of view?




Exactly. By the definitions employed here, everyone in the Twin Towers was nothing more than "collateral damage" - they weren't the main aim of the 9/11 attacks, the economy was; the people just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is their own fault, because they should have known they were consorting with people who had enemies.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:24 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
And so many people here seem just fine with it because they've been told that those who are being killed are "undesirables".


Heck, we don't even make 'em wear a gold star anymore! Just skip right to the wholesale killing of them.



I don't seem to remember the Jews working to destroy Germany or planning terrorist attack. I must have missed that history lesson.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.





You probably missed all your history lessons, going by the stuff you post.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:31 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I don't seem to recall muslim civilians in Pakistani (or other) areas are necessarily working to destroy us either.

Or how you have determined that Al Qaeda has killed more US citizens than America has killed muslim middle eastern citizens.

You don't seem to care whether the people we hit in drone strikes are civilians or not. Justified by "collateral damage." Convenient.

So what makes American civilian lives more valuable than muslim civilian lives? Why are American citizens not collateral damage from a different point of view?



The US is not tageting the civilians that is the difference.

As for what makes them more valuable, the US government is tasked with protecting US citizens and this country first, not others.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:33 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly. By the definitions employed here, everyone in the Twin Towers was nothing more than "collateral damage" - they weren't the main aim of the 9/11 attacks, the economy was; the people just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is their own fault, because they should have known they were consorting with people who had enemies.



So that is why they did in on a weekend to limit casualties....oh wait.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:34 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You probably missed all your history lessons, going by the stuff you post.



Nice! Taking a page from the Rappy playbook of non-responces.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 20:53 - 446 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 20:37 - 52 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 19:42 - 851 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL