"Someone Just Leaked Obama's Rules for Assassinating American Citizens"

[Winehole23]

oh, by 'overt' did you mean no complaint was filed at the UN, or something? what diplomats and government officials say publicly doesn't count as overt?

[Winehole23]

There's nothing inherently illegal about drones, or drone strikes themselves, assuming a) the war they're involved in is legal and b) the targets that the drones are striking are legal.

that's two big assumptions. whether our ready made CYA legal justification -- the presumed justness of declaring anyone anywhere an outlaw and the propriety using military force to kill them in other countries without those countries' permission -- makes it legal is an open question. if the AUMF is cricket, any country can pass a law essentially immunizing itself in advance for using military force anywhere in the world, in perpetuity.

There's no difference (in a "just war" sense) between a drone strike killing innocent bystanders unintentionally or a bomb/rocket/other projectile killing innocent bystanders unintentionally.

I did not claim there was a difference. Does just war theory cover preemptive attacks?

That's why I said that if Cornel West's argument is STRICTLY that it's a war crime because innocent civilians were killed, it's a poor argument.

The mode of killing is lawless, the intelligence behind it not so discriminating about the targets. Prima facie case for calling the drone strikes war crimes when innocents die seems strong; when no innocents die, just as strong, basically.

[ChumpDumper]

AUMF created endless war and an unlimited battlefield. Essentially, it's an everlasting fig leaf for whatever we decide to do to anyone. It's ing bull .

I didn't say it wasn't.

Pakistan has complained loud and long. I believe their official position is still that the attacks are illegal, unauthorized and a gross violation of their sovereignty.

Pakistan's governments have always been compromised and conflicted since it's creation. If they really didn't like the drone strikes, it doesn't seem that they would be that difficult to shoot down tbh.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you accept that there really are or were at the time AQ types in Pakistan and Yemen and they were indeed running training camps with the express purpose of setting off bombs all over the West then what policy would you guys recommend.

Do you think inaction is justified in this situation? If you think something should be done then what?

[Winehole23]

If you accept that there really are or were at the time AQ types in Pakistan and Yemen and they were indeed running training camps with the express purpose of setting off bombs all over the West then what policy would you guys recommend.

Dunno. What do you recommend?

Do you think inaction is justified in this situation? If you think something should be done then what?

What do you think? Have bombs been set off all over the west, or is it the other way around?

[LnGrrrR]

that's two big assumptions. whether our ready made CYA legal justification -- the presumed justness of declaring anyone anywhere an outlaw and the propriety using military force to kill them in other countries without those countries' permission -- makes it legal is an open question. if the AUMF is cricket, any country can pass a law essentially immunizing itself in advance for using military force anywhere in the world, in perpetuity.

I did not claim there was a difference. Does just war theory cover preventive attacks?

I would say it doesn't, but the current implementation (all "terrorists" are legal targets) hasn't been overturned that I know of, making it ipso facto legal at this time.

The mode of killing is lawless, the intelligence behind it not so discriminating about the targets. Prima facie case for calling the drone strikes war crimes when innocents die seems strong; when no innocents die, just as strong, basically.

The mode of killing isn't lawless though. Drone strikes must, in theory, abide by LOAC (laws of armed conflict.) We could argue whether or not the justification for those strikes isn't there, but that really has nothing to do with the delivery method, whether it be drones or soldiers or rockets.

[LnGrrrR]

AUMF created endless war and an unlimited battlefield. Essentially, it's an everlasting fig leaf for whatever we decide to do to anyone. It's ing bull .

Pakistan has complained loud and long. I believe their official position is still that the attacks are illegal, unauthorized and a gross violation of their sovereignty.

I agree that the AUMF is bull , but it's currently accepted policy, sadly. And Pakistan could choose to declare war formally, but they know they would be destroyed, so they complain without taking any further actions. Finding Osama in Pakistan really hurt their ability to complain.

[SA210]

.
Communist China showing how pathetic and inhumane we are

"China considered using a drone strike in a mountainous region of Southeast Asia to kill a Myanmar drug lord wanted in the murders of 13 Chinese sailors, but decided instead to capture him alive, according to an influential state-run newspaper."*

The U.S. isn't the only country using deadly drone strikes. China's plans to kill a drug dealer in another country with an unmanned drone. What is the embarrassing difference between the Chinese and American drones strike programs? Cenk Uygur explains.

TYT: Inside China's Drone Strike Plans

[Winehole23]

I would say it doesn't, but the current implementation (all "terrorists" are legal targets) hasn't been overturned that I know of, making it ipso facto legal at this time.

horribly wrongheaded. savors of tautology (whoever we say is a terrorist, ipso facto, is one); also, just war doctrine does cover preemptive (not preventive, sorry about the bad phrasing) war -- as a species of immorality.

The mode of killing isn't lawless though. Drone strikes must, in theory, abide by LOAC (laws of armed conflict.) We could argue whether or not the justification for those strikes isn't there, but that really has nothing to do with the delivery method, whether it be drones or soldiers or rockets.

wasn't referring to the delivery method but to the manner of delivery. attacking other countries without their permission is facially a cause of war. the justification isn't there, imho.

[SA210]

.
Most transparent administration ever?


Robert Gibbs Told Not To Acknowledge Drone Program Exists As White House Press Secretary


VIDEO: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46979738/n...ayes/#50927331

Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday that he was told not to "acknowledge" or "discuss" the secret drone program when becoming the government's top spokesman.

Chris Hayes, host of MSNBC's "Up," played a video clip of Gibbs and current press secretary Jay Carney dodging questions about drones in the White House briefing room before asking if the Obama administration has been sufficiently forthcoming about the controversial targeted killing program. Gibbs, who recently became an MSNBC contributor, recalled the instructions he was given upon taking the job.

“When I went through the process of becoming press secretary," Gibbs said, "one of the things, one of the first things they told me was, ‘You’re not even to acknowledge the drone program. You’re not even to discuss that it exists.'”

The national media was slow covering the secret drone war in Pakistan and Yemen during Obama's first term, which has been difficult to track given both the government's secrecy and that strikes often take place in remote areas. But the drone media debate has gained steam early in Obama's second term, alongside questions for top counter-terror official John Brennan upon his nomination to become CIA director.

Gibbs said that once he figured out a reporter's question was about the drone program, "I realized I'm not supposed to talk about it."

“Here’s what’s inherently crazy about that proposition," Gibbs said. "You’re being asked a question based on reporting of a program that exists. So you’re the official government spokesperson acting as if the entire program -- pay not attention to the man behind the curtain."

While Gibbs referenced the "Wizard of Oz" on Sunday, a federal judge last month described the "Alice-in-Wonderland nature" of the Obama administration's secrecy over drones in a decision against The New York Times' request for legal memos outlining the rationale for targeting a U.S. citizen suspected of terrorist ties. The White House has not publicly released the legal memos, but Carney made several references to the legal rationale in a 16-page Department of Justice white paper -- but only after it was leaked to NBC News.

Gibbs said he hasn't talked to Obama recently about transparency and the drone program, but said he thinks the president has seen that the White House's denial of the program "when it’s obviously happening, undermines people’s confidence overall in the decisions that their government makes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...cs&ir=Politics

[Winehole23]

I agree that the AUMF is bull , but it's currently accepted policy, sadly. And Pakistan could choose to declare war formally, but they know they would be destroyed, so they complain without taking any further actions.

this is the nub of it: might makes right.

Finding Osama in Pakistan really hurt their ability to complain.

How so?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Dunno. What do you recommend?
What do you think? Have bombs been set off all over the west, or is it the other way around?

I would say it's both.

But take the original question without the askance of a recommendation: "do you accept that there really are or were at the time AQ types in Pakistan and Yemen and they were indeed running training camps with the express purpose of setting off bombs all over the West?"

[LnGrrrR]

WH, I would say complaining about the US invading your country while arguably the world's most wanted terrorist was found in your country diminishes your standpoint if you are trying to claim you're doing everything you can to help exterminate terrorism. That's the realpolitik, even if they are well within their rights to complain.

[SA210]

.
A new finding just came out that only 2% of targeted drone strikes were high level terrorists.

"Michael Isikoff's Feb. 4 report on the "white paper" -- a 16-page memo that laid out, in part, the legal underpinnings that guide the Obama administration's policy of carrying out what they call "targeted killings" with drones -- ushered the use of drones back into the public consciousness."*

What do the American people really think about Obama's drone program? Do they approve of killing suspected terrorists? What if innocent people could be killed (as numbers show, the majority of drone strike casualties are)? How many people meet the definition of a "high level terrorist?" Cenk Uygur and Ben Mankiewicz break it down.

TYT: Drone Strikes - Does America Approve?






Drone Program Poll: The Public Does Not Uncritically Embrace Targeted Killings

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics

In the main, Americans are largely supportive of using drone strikes to kill "high-level terrorists." From there, however, they get wobbly:

According to the new Huffpost/YouGov poll, 56 percent of Americans say that the drone program should be used to target and kill high-level terrorists, while only 13 percent say that anyone suspected of being associated with a terrorist group should be targeted. Another 13 percent said that nobody should be killed using the drone program. A majority of Americans across most demographic and partisan groups agreed that the program should be used for high-level targets.

Naturally, there's little support for using drones to just kill any old terrorist functionary -- we're told we have a huge deficit problem, after all! And the media tends to overstate the extent to which "high-level targets" are being exclusively targeted at a high level. According to a study conducted by the New America Foundation, "only 2 percent of those killed met that definition."

It's inhumane, we are mass murdering civilians, they are war crimes.

[ChumpDumper]

I know the Pakistani government has to publicly oppose the drone strikes and just about anything else the US does vis-a-vis terra. The thing that tells me its actual policy is different is this: A predator drone is bigger and slower than this aircraft --

-- which hasn't been manufactured since 1977.

In close to 300 drone strikes and about 2500 resulting deaths in Pakistan, not one has been shot down by the Pakistani armed forces-- even after they explicitly said they would do so in 2011. Furthermore there is ample evidence from the wikileaks cable releases that those armed forces accepted and even requested more drone strikes to help themselves domestically.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...74J3UV20110520

So yeah, I don't buy the argument that the Pakistani government really opposes drone strikes.

[SA210]

[Wild Cobra]

.
A new finding just came out that only 2% of targeted drone strikes were high level terrorists.

And that surprised you? Does it surprise anyone?

Democrats love these toys rather than boots on the ground. With Obama, it is the drones. With Clinton, well... He exhausted our supply of cruise missiles when he was in office.

Besides having excessive casual damage, it just creates more hatred. They cannot see an enemy on the ground, and retaliate by doing things like flying planes into building. At least with boots on the ground, they feel less helpless, as there are targets they can attempt to engage.

Obama is just setting us up for a nuclear version of 911.

[Wild Cobra]

So yeah, I don't buy the argument that the Pakistani government really opposes drone strikes.

I don't either, but that doesn't make it right.

[ChumpDumper]

Must be laughing at his own post, since he obviously has me on ignore.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't either, but that doesn't make it right.

Wait, you oppose drone strikes against terrorists in Pakistan?

Yes or no.

[SA210]

And that surprised you? Does it surprise anyone?

Heck no, it doesn't surprise me, AT ALL. I have been the one in here saying this for a while that these are war crimes, and the majority of deaths/MURDER were civilians and that even the so called "terrorists" we were supposedly targeting have not even been proven to actually be terrorists to begin with. The 2% lol

lol It's sad but hilarious at the same time watching Obama suckers debate absolute bull when the bottom line is the strikes are illegal, and we are for the most part mass murdering civilians. Democrats with no spine backing a murdering corrupt President just because he wears a D. Pathetic

[Wild Cobra]

Wait, you oppose drone strikes against terrorists in Pakistan?

Yes or no.

It's not a simple yes/no question. Too general.

Assuming that Pakistan is OK with our use of drones there, then I am OK with a limited number surgical attacks in hard to reach locations. I would prefer a special ops team go in and take out the targets.

[ChumpDumper]

Heck no, it doesn't surprise me, AT ALL. I have been the one in here saying this for a while that these are war crimes, and the majority of deaths/MURDER were civilians and that even the so called "terrorists" we were supposedly targeting have not even been proven to actually be terrorists to begin with. The 2% lol

lol It's sad but hilarious at the same time watching Obama suckers debate absolute bull when the bottom line is the strikes are illegal, and we are for the most part mass murdering civilians. Democrats with no spine backing a murdering corrupt President just because he wears a D. Pathetic

I was OK with drone strikes under Bush as well.

I don't give a if they are high or low level tbh. I wish there was a better way of going about it, but I can't think of one.

[ChumpDumper]

It's not a simple yes/no question. Too general.

Assuming that Pakistan is OK with our use of drones there, then I am OK with a limited number surgical attacks in hard to reach locations. I would prefer a special ops team go in and take out the targets.

Everything about the bin Laden raid tells me that wouldn't be possible on a regular basis.

[Wild Cobra]

I was OK with drone strikes under Bush as well.

I don't give a if they are high or low level tbh. I wish there was a better way of going about it, but I can't think of one.

Number of drone strikes under president Bush was 48. Number of strikes by president Obama is 303.

6/19/04 to 1/2/09: 48 (1658 day range) which is a 10.6 drone per year average
1/23/09 to 2/8/13: 303 (1477 day range) which is a 74.9 drone per year average