Obama administration killing terrorists (from "Is torture ever warranted?")

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Texas

If we are going to take that route then let's indict Obama for assessing the death penalty against the terrorist "suspects" and innocent civilians killed in a dozen drone attacks to date since his election. There is no "ticking time bomb" situation there either. In lieu of that let him release the legal advice that he got to do so.

Originally Posted by Texas

Why? We are talking about the handling of terrorist "suspects". Is it ok to kill them without a trial not to mention innocent bystanders while roughing them up is cause for imprisonment? If we are going to use the Obama standard then he should be tried for murder.

This thread is for discussing Texas' concerns about the Obama administration apparently using drones to kill terrorists and bystanders, so as to avoid derailing the more specific thread about torture.

Texas, what specific incidents are you thinking about? Who was killed, and where, and by who?

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

This thread is for discussing Texas' concerns about the Obama administration apparently using drones to kill terrorists and bystanders, so as to avoid derailing the more specific thread about torture.

Texas, what specific incidents are you thinking about? Who was killed, and where, and by who?

Dishonest title.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Texas

Dishonest title.

Sorry about that. If you suggest a preferred title I'll ask the mods to change it.

Also, Texas, what specific incidents are you thinking about? Who was killed, and where, and by who?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by Texas

Dishonest title.

Not an answer.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by Texas

Dishonest title.

Which is fitting for the subject it came up in.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

This thread is for discussing Texas' concerns about the Obama administration apparently using drones to kill terrorists and bystanders, so as to avoid derailing the more specific thread about torture.

Texas, what specific incidents are you thinking about? Who was killed, and where, and by who?

The point is that those terrorist "suspects" did not have the option of a trial before being put to death. Death is worse than waterboarding not to mention an open handed slap. So since we are applying peace time law to treatment of captured terrorist suspects when it comes to interrogation methods why are we applying a different standard to terrorist suspects and children in the area when it comes to the ultimate penalty.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6036512.ece

Quote:

Thousands flee bomb attacks by US drones

AMERICAN drone attacks on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan are causing a massive humanitarian emergency, Pakistani officials claimed after a new attack yesterday killed 13 people.

The dead and injured included foreign militants, but women and children were also killed when two missiles hit a house in the village of Data Khel, near the Afghan border, according to local officials.
As many as 1m people have fled their homes in the Tribal Areas to escape attacks by the unmanned spy planes as well as bombings by the Pakistani army. In Bajaur agency entire villages have been flattened by Pakistani troops under growing American pressure to act against Al-Qaeda militants, who have made the area their base.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Feel free to suggest a thread title you'd prefer, as I said earlier.

As to the topic you're brought up, the article you linked to didn't make the justification for the attacks clear, it merely stated their (claimed but perfectly plausible) effects.

It seems pretty plausible to guess that as far as the US military is concerned they are attacking military targets, combatants in the war in Afghanistan who have hopped across the border but who are very much still in the game and who will be back across the border to attack US troops the first chance they get.

Obviously whether or not it's okay to attack people you think are combatants if they are in amongst civilians in the next country over is a valid question, but that question has to be weighed up in the context of the war against the Taliban and associated loonies in Afghanistan who can and will hop the border to hang out with their loonie friends in Pakistan.

As far as I'm aware there's a bright line drawn in international treaties which the USA has ratified that says "No torture, no way, no how, no matter what". I welcome correction but I'm not aware of any similar bright line forbidding cross-border attacks on combatants, or attacks on combatants who are standing near civilians.

If that's correct then your contribution to the torture thread was a non-sequitur. Unless of course your goal was to open up debate on the wider issue of why it's not okay to torture people but it's okay to launch cross-border attacks on military targets who are standing near civilians.

Again, if I've got any relevant facts or laws wrong I welcome better data.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

Feel free to suggest a thread title you'd prefer, as I said earlier.

As to the topic you're brought up, the article you linked to didn't make the justification for the attacks clear, it merely stated their (claimed but perfectly plausible) effects.

It seems pretty plausible to guess that as far as the US military is concerned they are attacking military targets, combatants in the war in Afghanistan who have hopped across the border but who are very much still in the game and who will be back across the border to attack US troops the first chance they get.

Obviously whether or not it's okay to attack people you think are combatants if they are in amongst civilians in the next country over is a valid question, but that question has to be weighed up in the context of the war against the Taliban and associated loonies in Afghanistan who can and will hop the border to hang out with their loonie friends in Pakistan.

As far as I'm aware there's a bright line drawn in international treaties which the USA has ratified that says "No torture, no way, no how, no matter what". I welcome correction but I'm not aware of any similar bright line forbidding cross-border attacks on combatants, or attacks on combatants who are standing near civilians.

If that's correct then your contribution to the torture thread was a non-sequitur. Unless of course your goal was to open up debate on the wider issue of why it's not okay to torture people but it's okay to launch cross-border attacks on military targets who are standing near civilians.

Again, if I've got any relevant facts or laws wrong I welcome better data.

We have gone beyond the rules of war here since we are applying civil law to captured terrorist suspects. The ONLY reason to bother capturing a terrorist is for gathering intelligence otherwise just kill them on sight. KSM and the other 2 were worth more alive than dead and according to the CIA we gained valuable information using the "torture" tactics and they are still alive and in good health. If we are going to apply civil law to one half of the "overseas contingency" operations as the new administration calls the WOT then it should apply to the other half as well. Obama has made a serious mistake and it will cost him dearly should an attack happen on his watch just as Bush was attacked for not connecting the dots prior to 911. This idiotic concept of "no torture under any circumstance" has never been followed by any nation in the history of the world.

The below is unbelievable. Pakistan is supposedly an ally and a sovereign nation and we violated that sovereignty by launching attacks without their permission. It violates every international treaty regarding national sovereignty ever written.

Quote:

As far as I'm aware there's a bright line drawn in international treaties which the USA has ratified that says "No torture, no way, no how, no matter what". I welcome correction but I'm not aware of any similar bright line forbidding cross-border attacks on combatants, or attacks on combatants who are standing near civilians.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Texas

We have gone beyond the rules of war here since we are applying civil law to captured terrorist suspects.

No. The treaty forbidding torture has no exceptions. It applies in war and in peace.

Quote:

The ONLY reason to bother capturing a terrorist is for gathering intelligence otherwise just kill them on sight. KSM and the other 2 were worth more alive than dead and according to the CIA we gained valuable information using the "torture" tactics and they are still alive and in good health.

There is nothing in the treaty the US ratified that says that it's okay to torture people if you would otherwise kill them. There is nothing in the treaty the US ratified that says it's okay to torture people if it leaves them alive and in good health.

Quote:

If we are going to apply civil law to one half of the "overseas contingency" operations as the new administration calls the WOT then it should apply to the other half as well. Obama has made a serious mistake and it will cost him dearly should an attack happen on his watch just as Bush was attacked for not connecting the dots prior to 911. This idiotic concept of "no torture under any circumstance" has never been followed by any nation in the history of the world.

You're just confused. This has nothing to do with applying civilian law, or for that matter civil law, to combatants.

Quote:

The below is unbelievable. Pakistan is supposedly an ally and a sovereign nation and we violated that sovereignty by launching attacks without their permission. It violates every international treaty regarding national sovereignty ever written.

It's a little more complicated than that. International law permits cross-border attacks under some circumstances, specifically if the target is presenting an imminent threat. (This was the doctrine appropriated and misrepresented by the Bush White House in order to hold a fig leaf of legality over the conquest of Iraq). The standard example is that if I roll up some artillery to my side of the border and point it at you, you can blow up that artillery legally. It might not be taken too well, of course, but you wouldn't immediately be in violation of international law to blow it up.

Further if another sovereign nation is harbouring people who keep jumping back across the border to shoot at you that's grounds for a legitimate declaration of war anyway. That would be unreasonable in this case since Pakistan's ownership of the border with Afghanistan is purely a political fiction, but either way international law would not forbid taking a crack at active combatants just because they hopped across a border.

As it is Pakistan would have grounds to object to the US actions, and the USA would have grounds to defend its actions. It's not clear-cut.

As opposed to the rule against torture, which is completely clear-cut.

[Texas]

I see. So you agree that the invasion of Iraq was legal since Saddam was shooting at US planes enforcing the no fly zones.

[Smackety]

Originally Posted by Texas

I see. So you agree that the invasion of Iraq was legal since Saddam was shooting at US planes enforcing the no fly zones.

Not an answer.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Texas

I see. So you agree that the invasion of Iraq was legal since Saddam was shooting at US planes enforcing the no fly zones.

Is this you doing an impression of a frog on a hotplate? Because you sure do jump around fast. You were all exited to talk about Obama and drone strikes a minute ago, and now you've got nothing to say. Cat got your tongue?

If you want to talk about the Iraq war, and you want the Cliff's Notes version (I think that's about as much as you can cope with) Iraq did not present the same kind of imminent threat to the USA as artillery just over the border present, and in any case permission to blow up the artillery is not permission to invade and conquer the nation that owns the artillery.

Further, the US-declared "no fly zone" had absolutely no basis in international law or binding UN resolution in the first place, so from the perspective of international law there was nothing improper about Iraq trying to shoot down US warplanes in its airspace.

I'd call that a triple helping of fail.