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

[ChumpDumper]

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

And?

[Wild Cobra]

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

That doesn't surprise me. Osama had been relegated to a symbol. He was pretty much meaningless other than that. Seems to me that the active high level operatives would be easier to find as they don't have the luxury of hiding from everyone. Even the low level operatives could be taken out by snipers, and not make the general population hate us with the necessary collateral damages of life and property. The message would be any active known member is a target, and the innocents will remain safe. When we start killing the innocent as well, we help their recruitment.

[Wild Cobra]

And?

It's appalling since there is collateral damage of life and property in most cases.

[ChumpDumper]

That doesn't surprise me. Osama had been relegated to a symbol. He was pretty much meaningless other than that. Seems to me that the active high level operatives would be easier to find as they don't have the luxury of hiding from everyone. Even the low level operatives could be taken out by snipers, and not make the general population hate us with the necessary collateral damages of life and property. The message would be any active known member is a target, and the innocents will remain safe. When we start killing the innocent as well, we help their recruitment.

Where did you get all the operational details of terrorists in Pakistan, WC? Give us some links.

It's appalling since there is collateral damage of life and property in most cases.

Now you care about collateral damage?

[Winehole23]

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.

similarly, when one pursues an essentially terroristic policy to stamp out terrorism, one loses the moral authority to denounce terrorism.

[Winehole23]

attacking weddings, funerals and first responders to drone strikes are not meaningfully distinguishable from what we claim to be fighting.

[LnGrrrR]

similarly, when one pursues an essentially terroristic policy to stamp out terrorism, one loses the moral authority to denounce terrorism.

Of course, but as you stated above, might makes right. When someone has the biggest guns, they don't have to use moral authority to get their way. (I would like it if we did, but I don't make policy...)

[Winehole23]

might doesn't make right, but it usually gets its way.

[LnGrrrR]

attacking weddings, funerals and first responders to drone strikes are not meaningfully distinguishable from what we claim to be fighting.

These are reprehensible, but of the above, the only ILLEGAL attack would be that of first responders. I've read one or two articles saying that the US was doing that, but I didn't see any followups. Has that been proven/disproven yet?

[Winehole23]

These are reprehensible, but of the above, the only ILLEGAL attack would be that of first responders.

so then, some foreign country that attacked an American funeral or wedding in order to kill some particular terrorist would be well within their rights to do so? that would be legal, in your view?

[Winehole23]

Has that been proven/disproven yet?

dunno, honestly.

[LnGrrrR]

so then, some foreign country that attacked an American funeral or wedding in order to kill some particular terrorist would be well within their rights to do so? that would be legal, in your view?

It's not MY view I'm discussing. It's the laws of armed conflict. If it's a valid military target, then it's a valid military target, whether he's on the john, at a funeral, etc etc. (Now, the question of killing innocents is one of collateral damage, which is different from legal/illegal target distinction.)

The reason why attacking first responders is illegal is because medics are protected non-combatants, and can't be targeted. (It's also illegal to attack a hospital, places of religion, or historical landmarks.) Now, if that medic has a weapon, they give up their noncombatant status, and can then be attacked. Medics also receive a few other protections, such as not being forced to work (except in a medical capacity) when taken prisoner.

[LnGrrrR]

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by overnmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations. Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person’s status.

Targeting Personnel. The LOAC protects civilian populations. Military attacks against cities, towns, or villages not justified by military necessity are forbidden. Attacking noncombatants (generally referred to as civilians) for the sole purpose of terrorizing them is also prohibited. Although civilians may not be made the object of a direct attack, the LOAC recognizes that a military target need not be spared because its destruction may cause collateral damage that results in the unintended death or injury to civilians or damage to their property. Commanders and their planners must take into consideration the extent of unintended indirect civilian destruction and probable casualties that will result from a direct attack on a military objective and, to the extent consistent with military necessity, seek to avoid or minimize civilian casualties and destruction. Anticipated civilian losses must be proportionate to the military advantages sought. Judge advocate, intelligence, and operations personnel play a critical role in determining the propriety of a target and the choice of weapon to be used under the particular cir stances known to the commander when planning an attack.
Targeting Objects. The LOAC specifically describes objects that shall not be the targets of a direct attack. Reflecting the rule that military operations must be directed at military objectives, objects normally dedicated to peaceful purposes enjoy a general immunity from direct attack. Specific protection applies to medical units or establishments; transports of wounded and sick personnel; military and civilian hospital ships; safety zones established under the Geneva Conventions; and religious, cultural, and charitable buildings, monuments, and POW camps. However, if these objects are used for military purposes, they lose their immunity. If these protected objects are located near lawful military objectives (which LOAC prohibits), they may suffer collateral damage when the nearby military objectives are lawfully engaged.

[Edward]

It's appalling since there is collateral damage of life and property in most cases.

Not nearly as much collateral damage as Bush's war in iraq caused.

[Wild Cobra]

Not nearly as much collateral damage as Bush's war in iraq caused.

Call it what you want, but we had a level of honor that drones don't provide. With boots on the ground, the enemy couldn't call us cowards.

[Edward]

Call it what you want, but we had a level of honor that drones don't provide. With boots on the ground, the enemy couldn't call us cowards.

I don't even know how to respond to this because it's so re ed.

Do you really think occupying a rag tag 3rd world country with a depleted military and killing 100,000+ civilians in the process had any level of honor? The war in Iraq had about as much honor as Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland.

"As long as we've got boots on the ground we've got honor! Sentimental bull like that is a lot more important than how many lives we lose, how many civilians we kill or how much spending we do!"

[LnGrrrR]

Call it what you want, but we had a level of honor that drones don't provide. With boots on the ground, the enemy couldn't call us cowards.

I'd much rather troops stay home and live their lives then risk them for "honor". Not to mention that drones, in the long run, are cheaper. If a drone gets injured, we need a new drone. If a person gets injured, you're paying medical care for the rest of his or her life.

[Wild Cobra]

I'd much rather troops stay home and live their lives then risk them for "honor".

That's the at ude that pissed them off enough to make them turn airliners into missiles.

[LnGrrrR]

That's the at ude that pissed them off enough to make them turn airliners into missiles.

No, us going over there in the first place pissed them off. We weren't using drones very often before 9/11, were we?

I agree that dropping bombs indiscriminately/killing indiscriminately will definitely piss a population off. But soldiers are apt to kill indiscriminately, as are bombs, etc etc. The drone is merely a replacement for a soldier, bomb, etc etc, and until the drones are fully automated it will continue to take the place of a soldier.

We should not weaken our capabilities in order to make the fight more "fair" against an enemy. Does it mean we lack honor because we have better weapons, better armor, better tactics, etc etc? I highly doubt enemies think of us as honorable, and whether it's a soldier pulling the trigger or a drone, if we kill innocents they will still be pissed off.

Now, I do think that people are essential for area/nation-building missions, in order to provide a human face to the local populace we wish to win over. But when it comes down to being in battle, I'd rather a drone every day over a soldier.

[Wild Cobra]

No, us going over there in the first place pissed them off. We weren't using drones very often before 9/11, were we?

Have you forgotten how many cruise missiles Clinton used before 9/11?

[LnGrrrR]

Have you forgotten how many cruise missiles Clinton used before 9/11?

Cruise missiles aren't drones. Additionally, do you know how many cruise missiles Clinton used? Are you arguing we shouldn't use missiles unless we have bodies on the ground?

[SA210]

Boom

And they tried lying and covering it up.

[Wild Cobra]

Cruise missiles aren't drones. Additionally, do you know how many cruise missiles Clinton used? Are you arguing we shouldn't use missiles unless we have bodies on the ground?

They have their time and place. I'm saying both Clinton and Obama have over used them, and for purposes they shouldn't heve been used for.

[LnGrrrR]

They have their time and place. I'm saying both Clinton and Obama have over used them, and for purposes they shouldn't heve been used for.

How many did Clinton use, and what do you think is the "correct" number? What is the "correct" purpose of a cruise missile?

[Edward]

Have you forgotten how many cruise missiles Clinton used before 9/11?

Clinton using cruise missiles isn't even close to when we went over there in the 1st place. Orchestrating a coup in 1953 to take out a Democratically elected prime minister so we could have a US puppet in Iran was the first major event that started creating enemies in the middle east.

Empowering puppet leaders we chose against the will of the people in the country creates a lot more enemies than drone strikes and cruise missiles. Having boots on the ground who torture Iraqi POWs and piss on the bodies of dead Iraqis also doesn't do too much to maintain this level of honor you think existed under Bush.