New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

About them doggone drones.

we are at war with criminals and a noun, not a country, so all the "wartime" stuff has no meaning, and merely serves as an excuse for the lawlessness kill lists, etc, represent.

Most "liberals" were on board with Clinton's continuation of the illegal no fly zones in Iraq, and all the wmd lies he and his mouthpieces spewed too, but then what happened?

All the rationalizing, etc, in the world won't overcome the legal/moral issues raised.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/02/objections-houses-killing.html

ANd the most pathetic part about it is, we're likely creating more enemies with bad intentions than we'll ever kill this way in this phony "war".
 
Mytzlplk said:
we are at war with criminals and a noun, not a country, so all the "wartime" stuff has no meaning, and merely serves as an excuse for the lawlessness kill lists, etc, represent.

Most "liberals" were on board with Clinton's continuation of the illegal no fly zones in Iraq, and all the wmd lies he and his mouthpieces spewed too, but then what happened?

All the rationalizing, etc, in the world won't overcome the legal/moral issues raised.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/02/objections-houses-killing.html

ANd the most pathetic part about it is, we're likely creating more enemies with bad intentions than we'll ever kill this way in this phony "war".
Click to expand...


We are not at war. We are engaged in a police action.
 
They wasted a perfectly good drone on this 16 year old turd terrorist?

He gave up all rights when he went to fight with the terrorists, people get killed when they play war how hard is that.

One less rag head terrorist that will take innocent lives, good riddance, bury what's left with a slice of ham wrapped around it.
 
Queen Titania said:
Who the hell is at War with you ? Do they know ? Did you tell them ?
Click to expand...

I was going to say Al Qaeda, but then I remembered that you are one of those peculiar people who insist no planes were flown into the Twin Towers on 9/11........Despite the tens of thousands of eyewitnesses who were there when it happened.
 
which is a distinction with a difference.

that being


Police actions are another name for a military conflict similar to warfare. The term came into use after World War II as certain postwar nations vied for control of territory while still appearing to maintain the charter of the United Nations. One of the most notable uses of the term "police action" is from the United States in nearly every one of its military conflicts since 1950.

it's the kinda stuff "might makes right" is made of
 
Mytzlplk said:
which is a distinction with a difference.

that being


Police actions are another name for a military conflict similar to warfare. The term came into use after World War II as certain postwar nations vied for control of territory while still appearing to maintain the charter of the United Nations. One of the most notable uses of the term "police action" is from the United States in nearly every one of its military conflicts since 1950.

it's the kinda stuff "might makes right" is made of
Click to expand...


I suspect that you meant to say "a distinction without a difference". There is a difference so far as American citizens are concerned. We have not declared war against any other nation, but we are engaged in combat as an aspect of this police action.
 
no, I meant what I wrote.

It's not a declared war against another country whether legal or illegal under the UN Charter, but rather euphemistic BS intended to preserve the trappings of legality or a conforming with the UN Charter, like "enhanced interrogation techniques" and international law. Being "similar" doesn't make them "the same", and that's the distinction that makes for the "difference".

I wasn't referring to diffs in combat activities, although one would expect differing standards on the "collateral damage" front in terms of proportionality considerations while actually warring against another nation as opposed to merely going after criminals.

The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%.

But it concludes that drone strikes, which are conducted by the CIA in a country not at war with the United States, are too harmful to civilians, too sloppy, legally questionable and do more harm to U.S. interests than good.

"A significant rethinking of current U.S. targeted killing and drone strike policies is long overdue," it says. "U.S. policy-makers, and the American public, cannot continue to ignore evidence of the civilian harm and counter-productive impacts of U.S. targeted killings and drone strikes in Pakistan." http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

The likelihood of such concerns being raised while in "a war" like gramps claimed to have served in, and upon which much of the drone support is based isn't very likely.

SO there's that distinction and difference as well.

ANd the "kill list" where US citizens are concerned, is another issue that doesn't lend itself to the kinda simplistic analysis involving similar "wartime" BS alone.
 
ARMCX1 said:
Gramps, I think the issue of targeted killings by drones is finally receiving the attention it deserves. The UN will be holding hearings on extrajudicial killings, and CIA director nominee Brennan will certainly get a lot questions.

For what it's worth, IMO, the use of drones to kill combatants is illegal under international law and the current regime for approving the killing of Americans is possibly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between our droning and individual and our cruise missling a building full of people with whom we take issue? I will suggest that the biggest difference is that the drone targets a specific individual. The cruise missle targets and entire building or city block, in hopes that our ne'er-do-well will end up in the pile of resultant bodies.

These being the case, why in the world would drones be less constitutional, less righteous, and more immoral than the cruise missle?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top