Skip to main content

View Diary: A message from the dronemaster general (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The laws of war as applied to Al Qaeda (0+ / 0-)

    Al Qaeda is a hostile military force at war with the United States.

    The US and every sovereign state may attack military forces which have declared war on the United States.

    Every person who chooses to join Al Qaeda is a legitimate military target.

    Air strike have been part of military operations since WWI.

    Under the Geneva Conventions, US military forces have an obligation to use due care in minimizing non-combatant casualties. However, no eliminating all non-combatant casualties is neither required nor even possible.

    The Geneva Conventions also require that US military forces treat their prisoners taken by the military humanely (not torture them). Under this administration, acts of torture have been ended, as well as illegal "extraordinary renditions".

    •  So much wrong, so little time. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilJD, triv33, JesseCW, gooderservice

      Firstly, there's some debate that AQ can rise to the stature (now, if ever) to be considered a non state entity able to be considered a party to a conflict... but even if we grant that, the following apply:

      http://www.icrc.org/...

      No strikes in neutral territories:

      Art. 40. Belligerent military aircraft are forbidden to penetrate into the jurisdiction of a neutral State.
      No CIA control:
      Art. 14. A military aircraft must be under the command of a person duly commissioned or matriculated military rolls of the State; the crew must be exclusively military.
      No firing at weddings parties/cafes:
      3. 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;
      Don't try and tell me the wedding party was in the immediate vicinity of the operations of the land forces (this does not simply include the presence of members of the land forces BUT, RATHER, THEIR ACTIVE MILITARY OPERATIONS... which is why you're oh so wrong about assassination).

      But, once you brush up on your reading comprehension, and get sick of being oh so wrong while being oh so facile... perhaps, if you ever intended to contribute meaningfully, you can come back with an angle that noone of your ilk has yet provided that I, or others, haven't shut utterly to pieces over and over.

      •  Countries which shield combatants are not neutral (0+ / 0-)

        There is no safe haven for belligerent forces.

        "Vicinity of land forces" is anywhere Al Qaeda is conducting training, organization, planning.

        Have you not even heard of WWII? Do you want to say every bombing in WWII was or would be illegal under the Geneva conventions?

        No matter how you squirm, you cannot avoid the fact that Al Qaeda declared war on the United States and made war on the United States.

        And the Geneva conventions is not a shield to protect them from counter-attack.

        •  Yes, Dresden was a war crime. Lucky the allies won (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          Not every bombing. But they CAN be.

          As to "safe haven for beliigerent forces"... you know I've done this dance, right?

          You DO know a neutral counrty can allow belligerent officers in their territory the right to roam freely on their parole not to leave without permission? And doing so does NOT violate their neutrality.

          I provided the relevent link & quotes.. I am not the one squirming to defend an indefensible policy, legally or morally.

          All other considerations aside (whether AQ can be considered to have the attributes of a non state actor, etc):

          CIA command drones. Illegal.
          Fire at cafes/wedding parties. Illegal.
          Enter sovereign neutral airspace. Illegal.

          No wriggle room for YOUR abhorrent squirming. Your either ignorant or pernicious defending of breaches of international law. And Ignorance should be out given the explanations provided.

          •  You have no points (0+ / 0-)

            Just endless repetition of your talking points.

            If you had some understanding of international law, you might be worth debating, but sadly you are stuck repeating ideas like "al Qaeda can hide in country X and you can't make war on them".

            Bullcrap, sir.

            •  You indeed can. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JesseCW

              You can declare war on the country.

              Or, it is "possible" as hashed out in this dance with Armando, that you can send ground forces in to deal with NON OFFICERS who are not being detained by the neutral power.

              But airstrikes and attacking officers who are free to roam on their parole not to leave without permission?

              International law is clear. Hague 1907. You get to screw off. Of course American has a veto on the SC, so it really depends hwo big of an incident people want to make of it before any repercussions occur.

              This is "my understanding" of international law.

              http://www.icrc.org/...

              It shall decide whether officers can be left at liberty on giving their parole not to leave the neutral territory without permission.
              It grossly outstrips whatever jingoistic dross that is swilling around inside your head. Run along now.
            •  Bin Laden was not "on parole" (0+ / 0-)

              Al Qaeda forces are not "on parole".

              They are and will be killed so long as Al Qaeda is involved in the planning of lethal attacks against the United States.

              You posit that the US can send in ground forces to take such persons.

              1) There is no distinction between this action and an airborne strike in that both involve the use of projectile weapons.

              2) There is no distinction between this action and an airborne strike because in both cases there is a risk of non-combatant casualties and an obligation to use due care in preventing non-combatant casualties.

              •  How would you know? Seriously, maybe a Pakistani (0+ / 0-)

                official has given him permission to be there.

                THAT aside (becuase, see: biggest bully + a bit embarassed... they' never admit it)

                If he WASN'T on parole... the laws only let you violate sovereignty if the sovereign nation WONT do anything about the balligerant force in their territory. (which, as established, could, if they wanted to say fuck you to your position on the legality, simply be to parole him)

                Were they informed and given the opportunity to meet their obligations?

                No?

                OOOPS.

                VIOLATED SOVEREIGN AIRPSACE OF A NEUTRAL POWER.

                Now, I know we're never going to let a pesky little thing like a oft violated international law (see: every spy plane ever) get in the way of getting OBL... but instead of rejoicing in that it was done and blithely dismissing HOW... perhaps some intrspection, I know it might hurt... OBL was fairly unique. Just because his raid was "worth" the violations... does not mean they should be accepted in any other situation.

        •  Which is why Allied forces were justified (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          triv33, JesseCW, poligirl, gooderservice

          in leveling Zurich and Oslo during WWII.

          Oh wait

          Countries which shield combatants are not neutral

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 05:39:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  And, CIA are sworn in just as military officers (0+ / 0-)

        CIA take an oath to the Constitution just like military officers. And they operate under the authority of the Commander and Chief and follow his orders as Commander and Chief.

        CIA officers are part of the military rolls for the purpose of the Geneva convention.

        •  DO. NOT. MAKE. ME. LAUGH. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          The CIA is civilian. It does NOT fall under DoD, it has no ranks, and to make a complete mockery out of you their own website has a MILITARY TRANSITION page... how you can earn extra if you were in the military and were to transition to working for them.

          In short, screw off you steaming pile of disingenuity.

          •  CIA officers take an oath to the Constitution (0+ / 0-)

            CIA officers take an oath to the Constitution.
            Civilians do not.
            Game over.

            •  So do congress and judges. (0+ / 0-)

              CIVILIANS.

              CIA do not recite this:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              You ignorant ignorant little fool.

              But all I had to do is show other civilians take an oath to the constitution.

              Also, not DoD.

              Also, not required to abide by the USMJ.

              NOT MILITARY.

              But go on, keep making an utter god damn fool of yourself.

              •  If CIA officers are violating Geneva Conventions.. (0+ / 0-)

                If CIA officers are violating the Geneva Conventions, then why don't you arrest them and bring them to trial at The Hague?

                You are more than a fool.
                You are a Republican tool.

                "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

                Every CIA officer takes this oath to the Constitution. And their authority to commit military operations flows from the Commander and Chief, who orders these military operations.

                There is only one source of legitimate military authority in the United States.

                •  Becuase I do not have the authority to do so you (0+ / 0-)

                  puerile little prat?

                  And there ARE proceedings against the drone strikes in the U.N. But America has a veto, so, always legal as long as the President (or a SC member) does it.

                  And no, I'm not Republican tool. I'm HONEST.

                  I am the only one in this exchange that can say that.

                  I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. [So help me God.][62]
                  THAT IS THE OATH CONGRESS HAS TO TAKE YOU RIDICULOUS LITTLE MAN.

                  ARE YOU CLAIMING, ON THIS BASIS, THAT CONGRESS ARE IN THE MILITARY.

                  No, you are a confused and afraid little man at best, and an abhorrent and pernicious apologist if beign polite otherwise.

                  I support the President on many things, and agree with republicans on, oh, ABOUT ZERO.

                  I suport gun control, environmentalism, the right to choose, treating those who may not have followed all the rules on entering the country, and especially their children, fairly, think Reid should have changed the filibuster rules, am appalled at TBTF and especially its offshoot TBTP (prosecute)... I'm about as progressive as they come.

                  DEFENDING THE PRESIDENTS FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL LAW ON:

                  **THIS ISSUE**

                  DOES NOT MAKE ME A REPUBLICAN TOOL.

                  Your inablity to comprehend the (IL) laws and constitutional issues at stake however... certainly makes you a fool.

                •  Similar oaths are taken by most Government (0+ / 0-)

                  employees.

                  This is perhaps the weakest of the many weak arguments I've seen you trot out.

                  It's kind of embarrassing to read.

                  income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                  by JesseCW on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 09:06:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  God must love the stupid... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...because he made you.

                  I said that CIA officers have to take an oath to the Constitution. They do.

                  I quoted the specific oath.

                  You are just now coming to realize that I have cited facts in every instance, and that your pathetic attempt to delegitimize the use of one particular projectile weapon system (drone borne missiles) has led you to an untenable position:

                  That killing Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda is illegal.

                  And that makes you sad. And embarrassed. And angry. I apologize for having publicly humiliated you.

                  But the US will continue to kill Al Qaeda, with all means permitted by the laws of war, Congressional approval and the Constitution, without quarter. Regardless of whom is president. Until they surrender or disband.

                  •  This applies equally well to Jessie and majyqman (0+ / 0-)
                  •  And we pointed out that that oath does NOT define (0+ / 0-)

                    military personnel... because EVEN CONGRESS HAS TO TAKE IT YOU IGNORANT PRAT.

                    CIA is civilian.

                    Though I really don't mine every single instance of you repeating your staggering lack of faculties for every observer to see. It will at least warn them away from the less obvious/more insidious dross you peddle in case a particular istance hasn't drawn the attention of someone with a moment to lable it "steaming pile".

    •  If a Drone Could Blog a Comment... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW

      ...it would be with your cold and calculating words.  

      Has anyone ever ask you this:
      "Open the pod bay doors, Hal."

      •  War is hell (0+ / 0-)

        There is no way you can sanitize it. We tell our people, who have sworn to obey the Constitution, to kill people without trial.

        That alone should clue people in to the fact that we throw away most of our laws, and societal norms, when we make war.

        •  You, Yoo, Armando, Cheney - you've all got (0+ / 0-)

          the same excuse for trashing the laws of war.

          "Don't hate the war criminals, hate the war".

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 09:08:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Torturing your prisoners violates laws of war (0+ / 0-)

            Killing hostile military forces with which you are at war is not.

            In this case, we are talking about Congressionally authorized war, not a rogue president.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site