Skip to main content

View Diary: Professor Droney (468 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A serious answer (19+ / 0-)
    What is about drones that are so special?
    Maybe you ought to ask President Obama that. He's the one who's made it the primary killing tool his war on terrah, which is really a collection of distinct dirty wars.

    If he were using poison spitballs to violate international law, do away with due process, kill children and other civilians, piss off half the world, and create terrorists, then we'd be writing about poison spitballs.

    •  I see that claim all the time (0+ / 0-)

      about violating international law and yet people never say which law(s) he's supposed to be violating

      •  In this (9+ / 0-)

        comment, I touch on some of the legal problems.

        It's hard to say with certainty that the U.S. is violating IL, because so much of the info -- their targeting criteria, what efforts the admin is making to distinguish combatants from civilians, etc -- is secret. We know that the for purposes of counting the dead, it regards all military age males in a strike zone as combatants. If that were also its targeting criteria, it would be a war crime. And the extent of the lawbreaking also depends on whether the rules of war, or human rights law, applies to the killing the U.S. is doing in Yemen, Somalia, etc.

        •  having read their explaination (0+ / 0-)

          of why they count as they do the logic though is sound largely.

          I'm sure that it leaves something to be desired but short of going there no method would be perfect

        •  You were certain before (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          emelyn, duhban

          Now you have doubts?

          •  Hardly, go read my (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW, lotlizard, majyqman, TheMomCat

            my comment, which features words and phrases like "probably" and "hard to say for sure" and "legal problems."

            The only thing I was certain about is that you ducked most of the important IL questions.

            Incidentally,some IL experts, like Mary Ellen O'Connell, don't see the need to use words like "probably."

            I wrote about that first drone attack in 2004, saying it was unlawful. Even more importantly, the UN Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial Killing, Asma Jahangir, from Pakistan, a very well-respected human rights lawyer, did an investigation of that 2002 Yemen attack, and said it was extra-judicial killing.
            If I get a chance, I do a post addressing all the IL questions that you ducked or didn't know enough to address.
            •  Please do (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              But look to sources that may challenge your world view as well.

              •  Torture supporters found dirty lawyers free (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CT Hank, Nada Lemming, majyqman, TheMomCat

                from ethical constraint to construct excuses for their abuses too.

                That you've decided to posse up with Dershowitz in order to avoid responsibility for your choice to dedicate yourself to making sure this President is free continue a campaign of murder and terror does not mean that people of conscience or goodwill will be persuaded by such arguments.

                What were once Right Wing talking points that would have seen you banned from this site for repetition are now becoming accepted as part of the mainstream.

                That's Obama's one lasting achievement - making the morally bankrupt arguments and debauched distortions of law acceptable to a surprising number of modern Democrats.

                "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

                by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:56:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yep (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  emelyn, duhban, sviscusi

                  Reasonable discourse.

                  •  Your argument didn't actually involve reason (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    majyqman, TheMomCat

                    to begin with.  How could it possible have sparked reasoned debate?

                    When the UN rules against your bizarre and unreasonable twisting of the laws of armed conflict (only to have any resolutions vetoed the Administration you're carrying water for) we both know that your "views" won't change.

                    They aren't based on even a cursory understanding of or basic regard for international law.


                    "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

                    by JesseCW on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:26:34 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is the closest you have come to an argument (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      as opposed to insults.

                      So your argument, as I now understand it, is "international law" is what is being violated, not the Constitution.

                      Explain your cursory understanding of the international law provisions you believe are being violated.

                      I'll make it easy for you, link to your best surrogate on the subject.

            •  There are some very good observations (0+ / 0-)

              on some of the IL issues in two posts by Kevin Jon Heller at Opinio Juris.

      •  How about the Hague? (0+ / 0-)
        I see that claim all the time (0+ / 0-)

        about violating international law and yet people never say which law(s) he's supposed to be violating

        Other than problems with what due process of law is being granted to those killed...

        Just with the use of (esp. CIA) drone strikes alone:

        -"Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and building which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces, is forbidden. Should the objectives specified in paragraph 2 be so situated that they could not be bombed but that an undiscriminating bombardment of the civil population would result therefrom, the aircraft must abstain from bombing;"... (so no bombing wedding parties...)

        -"A military aircraft must be under the command of a person duly commissioned or matriculated military rolls of the State"... (so no civilian CIA control of drones...)

        -"Belligerent military aircraft are forbidden to penetrate into the jurisdiction of a neutral State."... (so even if, as was contended in the other thread, you can perversely declare a person or group inside a neutral state an enemy combatant and then enter their territory to take measures when that state wont (not even counting the neutral state is free to allow a belligerent officer free to roam on their parole not to leave without permission)... you can NOT do so with an aircraft...)

        Of course this doesn't touch on all the problems re: U.S. law. But should be enough to answer your "concern".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site