Skip to main content

View Diary: War is hell: A defense of the Obama Administration's policy regarding drones (1255 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So what if other countries decide to (8+ / 0-)

    Assassinate potential threats in US soil using drones? Would you be ok with the collateral damage, because it's a "war"? I never really understood this idea that Americans can just bomb whatever country they feel like, with little regard to transparency and civilian lives, and expect no backlash whatsoever.  I can only imagine the outrage if the opposite was happening. This has to be one of the worst diaries I've ever read on the GOS FP. To call this a disappointment is an understatement.

    “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

    by 420 forever on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 09:32:41 AM PST

    •  Assuming those countries have a legal cassus belli (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, Quicklund

      then it would, indeed, be perfectly legal for them to use drones against American military commanders and other combatants.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:24:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Our attacks are (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aliasalias, corvo, Nada Lemming

        all the Cassus Belli they need.  We served up their Cassus BellI on a silver platter.

        You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

        by Johnny Q on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 11:25:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  All of those governments have approved them. (2+ / 0-)

          The Yemeni government, the Somali government, and the Pakistani government have all authorized the counter-terror strikes in their territory.  In the case of the Awlaki strike, the Yemeni government actually took credit for it when it first happened.

          So, no, not really.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 12:47:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, when a future administration in Afghanistan (0+ / 0-)

            passes their own version of a AUMF authorizing the killing of any individual associated with any organization responsible for (name any time civilians were killed in Afghanistain, let's say pregnant women)...

            ...with no timeframe constraints on that association...

            ... and let's ignore the fact they will be swatted like flies in response...

            ...you will consider there to be no legal problem if they take out a few presidents, past and current?

            No? Because the U.S. government didn't assent? You'll note it's not a legal requirement... just something that's happened so far.

            How about if it's and Afghani citizen the U.S. is harboring? And what if they were visiting the whitehouse when the strike hit?

            Still no problem? Of course you'd have a problem, because your side of this argument falls down IMMEDICATELY upon the actors being reversed.

            •  Did my entire comment go over your head? (0+ / 0-)

              I just explained that the governments in those countries had authorized the strikes.

              Why are you asking me about a situation in which a foreign government conducts hostile operations, without our approval, in our territory?

              That is exactly the opposite of what was written the comment you replied to.

              And, so, I don't have the slightest interest in answering you.

              WTF?

              Art is the handmaid of human good.

              by joe from Lowell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 02:33:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Assented because they are puppets. (0+ / 0-)

                Assented through fear.
                Or were deemed too incompetant/unwilling to comply.

                Note how that last one will work in my example.

              •  Also: (0+ / 0-)
                Why are you asking me about a situation in which a foreign government conducts hostile operations, without our approval, in our territory?
                Like the raid that got OBL?

                Right?

                Or wasn't that legal?

              •  Crickets... right? (0+ / 0-)

                I understood what you were attempting to claim, I acknowledged it:

                No? Because the U.S. government didn't assent? You'll note it's not a legal requirement... just something that's happened so far.
                Because the argument has been made (by the diarist) that any government either unwilling or unable to assist in the capture of people another government deems threats to them can have their sovereignty violated...

                I just want to know how you'd feel about that.

                On a related note. Was the OBL raid legal?

    •  It's actually an argument that Pakistan should (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZhenRen, aliasalias, corvo

      legally be free to bomb a wedding Brennan is attending, since he's clearly an imminent threat to Pakistani civilians.

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

      by JesseCW on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 10:25:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's just it, isn't it. The stupidity evident in (0+ / 0-)

        the claims that all this has happened where:

        1) The governments have assented

        2) The governments have no control/refuse to help

        So therefor it's all perfectly legal...

        Is that every government not in the first... is in the second!

        and obviously the U.S. would refuse to help/show through their actions they have no desire or control over stopping Brennan from causing harm to their civilians....

    •  American Exceptionalism, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aliasalias, corvo, 420 forever

      doncha know.

    •  Why would I be ok with it? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Quicklund

      And what does my being "ok with it" have to do with whether it complied with the laws of war?

      There are basic concepts of law that are missing from your comment.

      •  If you're not ok with it you don't spend resources (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        420 forever

        defending its legality.

        You shore up the arguments againsts its legality (and there are some, you know, at least the U.N. thinks so), or you attempt to change the laws.

        •  I speak honestly (0+ / 0-)

          Not to convenience.

          •  There are honest arguments against its legality (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            420 forever

            which you could have advocated... and there's a whole world of effort to be spent on making sure there's no argument as to whether its legal or not.

            You chose which avenue to spend your effort on, and this speaks volumes to exactly how much of a problem you must have with it. Or at least to what extent protestations that you have a problem with it will be fairly granted credulity.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site